Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00480/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00480-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NORMAN J. CRAIG

Plaintiff,

v.

MTD PRODUCTS COMPANY, an Ohio 

Corporation; dba TROY-BILT, LLC,

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-00480-TLN-EFB

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Award of 

Attorney Fees. (ECF No. 5.) Defendant has filed an opposition to Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 

6.) The Court has carefully considered the arguments raised in Plaintiff’s motion as well as 

Defendant’s opposition. For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and 

Award of Attorney Fees (ECF No. 5) is hereby DENIED.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On September 18, 2015, this case was filed in the California Superior Court, El Dorado

County. (ECF No. 6 at 4.) The Complaint indicated the parties were diverse from each other, but 

did not specify the amount of damages Plaintiff was claiming. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) Defendant 

made several attempts to discover the amount of damages Plaintiff was claiming during the 

course of the discovery process in order to determine whether the case could be removed to 

Case 2:16-cv-00480-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

federal court. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) Defendant sent two Requests for Admissions inquiring about 

damages on November 12, 2015. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) In December, 2015, Plaintiff responded 

stating Plaintiff did not have sufficient knowledge of the damages. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) Plaintiff 

responded to Defendant’s interrogatories with the same statement. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) Defendant 

also attempted to coordinate meet and confer correspondence regarding the damages, but was 

unsuccessful. (ECF No. 6 at 5.) On January 4, 2016, Defendant received Plaintiff’s Case 

Management Statement. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) This document indicated the amount in controversy to 

be $80,000, and was the first time Plaintiff had mentioned any estimation of damages. (ECF No. 

6 at 2.) The amount was listed in reference to a California Rules of Court provision in which 

Plaintiff claimed it was exempt from participating in judicial arbitration.

1

 (ECF No. 6 at 6.) The 

dollar figure was typed in on the second page of a six page form document. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) 

Defendant asserts that it did not see the amount listed on the form and continued to inquire about 

the amount of damages. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) On February 16, 2016, Defendant received Plaintiff’s 

Amended Responses to Defendant’s Request for Admissions, in which Plaintiff stated the amount 

in controversy exceeded $75,000. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) At this point, it had been just over 30 days 

since Defendant received Plaintiff’s Case Management Statement. (ECF No. 6 at 7.) On March 

8, 2016, Defendant removed this action to federal court. (ECF No. 5 at 1.) Plaintiff now moves 

to remand this case, alleging Defendant missed its opportunity for removal. (ECF No. 5 at 1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Procedures for removal are set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. A defendant seeking to remove 

a civil action shall file a notice of removal in the district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a); Roth v. CHA 

Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1124 (9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant bears 

the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F. 2d. 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

1992). Removal statutes should be construed narrowly in favor of remand to protect the 

jurisdiction of state courts. Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005).

28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(1) permits defendants to remove state court actions to federal court 

 

1 Under Rule 3.811 of the California Rules of Court, cases are exempt from judicial arbitration if the amount 

of damages exceeds $50,000.

Case 2:16-cv-00480-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/18/16 Page 2 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

within thirty days of receiving an initial pleading or other document that reveals a basis for 

removal. 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(1). However, if the initial pleading does not provide a basis for 

removal, a defendant may remove an action within thirty days of receiving an amended pleading, 

motion, order, or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is removable.

28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(3); Jordan v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC, 781 F.3d 1178, 1179 (9th Cir. 2015). 

Defendant has no affirmative duty to investigate beyond the face of the complaint to 

determine if the case is removable. Rose v. Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., No. 1:06cv0067 

AWI DLB, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54530 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2006). Defendant can avoid the 

running of the thirty-day time period even if it suspects that the complaint is removable. Id.

Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(c)(1), Defendant cannot remove to federal court more than a 

year after the case was initiated in state court, "unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has 

acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action." 28 U.S.C.S. § 

1446(c)(1).

III. ANALYSIS

A. Removal

Plaintiff’s initial pleading did not establish a jurisdictional amount of more than $75,000. 

Accordingly, Defendant did not file for removal within 30 days of the pleading, as allowed under 

28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(1), and therefore this section is not at issue. Thus, the Court turns to 28 

U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(3) to determine whether Defendant properly removed this case to federal 

court. 

Plaintiff admits that the parties in this action are diverse and the controversy meets the 

$75,000 minimum requirement for diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), but argues Defendant 

missed its window for removal under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(3). (ECF No. 5 at 2.) Defendant

received Plaintiff’s Case Management Statement on January 4, 2016. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) As 

referenced above, a section of the Case Management Statement regarding mandated arbitration 

indicated the amount in controversy to be $80,000. (ECF No. 6 at 2.) Plaintiff claims the Case 

Management Statement is considered an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(3), and

therefore this document put Defendant on notice that the case was removable. (ECF No. 5 at 2.) 

Case 2:16-cv-00480-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/18/16 Page 3 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

Plaintiff contends Defendant’s removal was improper because it filed for removal on March 8, 

2016, more than 30 days after receiving the Case Management Statement. (ECF No. 5 at 2.)

Defendant argues Plaintiff acted in bad faith by refusing to give any information as to the 

damages prior to its submission of the Case Management Statement. (ECF No. 6 at 3.)

Defendant claims the 30-day clock should have instead begun February 16, 2016, when it 

received Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Defendant’s Request for Admissions clearly stating 

the damages exceeded $75,000. (ECF No. 6 at 7.) Accordingly, Defendant argues that filing for 

removal within 30 days of receiving Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Defendant’s Request for 

Admissions was proper. (ECF No. 6 at 7.)

Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(c)(3), “information relating to the amount in controversy in the 

record of the State proceeding, or in responses to discovery, shall be treated as an “other paper”

under subsection (b)(3).” The Ninth Circuit has not further specified a definition of “other 

paper.” Fitzwater v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:15-cv-0825-GMN-NJK, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

164355 (D. Nev. Dec. 8, 2015). However, “other paper” has been interpreted to mean

“documents generated within the state court litigation.” Rose v. Beverly Health & Rehab. Servs., 

No. 1:06cv0067 AWI DLB, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54530 (E.D. Cal. July 22, 2006) (finding that 

an email sent from Defendants to Plaintiff during the course of trial was not considered an “other 

paper”); see also Riggs v. Cont’l Baking Co., 678 F. Supp. 236 (N.D. Cal. 1988) (holding “[t]he 

elements of removability must be specifically indicated in official papers before the statutory 

period begins to run”). 

In this case, Plaintiff filed a Case Management Statement2as part of the state court 

litigation. However, because this Court finds that Plaintiff acted in bad faith to conceal the 

amount of damages in an effort to prevent removal, it does not decide whether the Case 

Management Statement is considered an “other paper” under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(b)(3).

Plaintiff’s bad faith attempts to conceal the jurisdictional amount of the case in an effort 

to prevent removal are governed by 28 U.S.C.S. § 1446(c)(3)(B). The rule explains that Plaintiff 

 

2 This form was filed as part of an Alternative Dispute Resolution program offered through the El Dorado 

Superior Court system. 

Case 2:16-cv-00480-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/18/16 Page 4 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

has “deliberately failed to disclose the actual amount in controversy to prevent removal.” 28 

U.S.C.S. § 1446(c)(3)(B). Here, the complaint did not state the amount of damages and

Defendant made several attempts to determine if the case met the $75,000 amount required for 

removal. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) Plaintiff refused to provide Defendant with any information as to the

amount of damages for another five months. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) When Plaintiff finally provided 

the $80,000 figure, it was included as part of an arbitration provision in the middle of a Case 

Management Statement form letter. (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Only when that 30-day time limit had 

elapsed did Plaintiff provide Defendant with Plaintiff’s Amended Responses to Defendant’s 

Request for Admissions, in which Plaintiff stated the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

(ECF No. 6 at 7.) 

This late amendment seems to be a tactical decision made in an effort to prevent removal, 

especially in light of Plaintiff’s duty to supplement or amend disclosures and responses under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(e)(1) (“A party...who has responded to an interrogatory, request for 

production, or request for admission—must supplement or correct its disclosure or response in a 

timely manner if the party learns that in some material respect the disclosure or response is 

incomplete or incorrect, and if the additional or corrective information has not otherwise been 

made known to the other parties during the discovery process or in writing”).

This case meets the jurisdictional requirements under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1332(a) because the 

parties are diverse and the amount of damages exceeds $75,000. Therefore, the federal court has 

subject matter jurisdiction to hear the case. Because the Plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent the 

case from being removed to federal court, its Motion to Remand is denied.

B. Attorney Fees

Because this case is not being remanded, the Court declines Plaintiff’s request for attorney 

fees.

///

///

///

///

Case 2:16-cv-00480-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/18/16 Page 5 of 6
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Award of Attorney Fees 

(ECF No. 5) is hereby DENIED.

Dated: October 17, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00480-TLN-EFB Document 9 Filed 10/18/16 Page 6 of 6