Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-00121/USCOURTS-azd-2_17-cv-00121-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Breach of Contract

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Sun City Pet Market, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

The Honest Kitchen, Inc., a Delaware 

corporation, 

Defendant. 

No. CV17-00121-PHX DGC

ORDER 

 Defendant removed this case from state court. Doc. 1. Plaintiff filed a motion to 

remand under 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Doc. 8. The motion is fully briefed, and neither party 

has requested oral argument. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the 

motion to remand. 

I. Background. 

Plaintiff Sun City Pet Market, LLC is an Arizona limited liability company with 

its principal place of business in Arizona. Doc. 1-2 ¶ 1. Defendant The Honest Kitchen, 

Inc. is a Delaware corporation registered to do business in Arizona. Id., ¶ 2. On 

November 22, 2016, Plaintiff filed its complaint in Arizona state court (Doc. 8 at 1) and 

mailed Defendant a verified copy with a demand letter (Doc. 18 at 4; Doc. 9). Plaintiff 

asserts that Defendant waived formal service, but does not cite to the record. Doc. 18 at 

4. Defendant denies that it waived formal service. Doc. 8 at 2; Doc. 19 at 2-3. Plaintiff 

Case 2:17-cv-00121-DGC Document 20 Filed 03/02/17 Page 1 of 5
- 2 - 

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 

served Defendant with the summons and complaint on December 13, 2016. Doc. 1-2 at 

20. Defendant filed a notice of removal on January 13, 2017. Doc. 1. 

II. Analysis. 

Plaintiff argues that remand is proper because Defendant’s notice of removal was 

untimely and procedurally defective. The Court disagrees. 

 A. Defendant’s notice of removal was not untimely. 

 Generally, a defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days of being 

served with a summons and complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Murphy Bros., Inc. v. 

Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 355 (1999). The 30-day requirement “is 

triggered by defendant’s receipt of an ‘initial pleading’ that reveals a basis for removal. 

If no ground for removal is evident in that pleading, the case is ‘not removable’ at that 

stage. In such case, the notice of removal may be filed within thirty days after the 

defendant receives ‘an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper’ from which it 

can be ascertained from the face of the document that removal is proper.” Harris v. 

Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). “[N]otice of removability 

under § 1446(b) is determined through examination of the four corners of the applicable 

pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry.” Id. 

 Plaintiff served Defendant with the summons and complaint on December 13, 

2016. Doc. 1-2 at 20. If a basis for removal was evident in Plaintiff’s complaint, then the 

30-day removal period would have ended on January 12, 2017, the day before Defendant 

filed its notice of removal. Doc. 1. But Defendant argues that the time for removal did 

not begin to run when it was served because Plaintiff’s citizenship was not apparent from 

the complaint. Doc. 18 at 2. Defendant argues that the time for removal still has not run 

because Defendant discovered the basis for removal through its own investigation and not 

from any additional information from Plaintiff. Id. The Court agrees. 

1. Plaintiff’s citizenship was not evident from its complaint. 

Plaintiff’s complaint states that it is an Arizona limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in Arizona. Doc. 1-2 at 4. An LLC is a citizen where its 

Case 2:17-cv-00121-DGC Document 20 Filed 03/02/17 Page 2 of 5
- 3 - 

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 

owners and members are citizens. Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 

894, 902 (9th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff’s complaint does not state how many owners or 

members it has, or their states of citizenship. Doc. 1-2. Without those facts, Plaintiff’s 

citizenship was not evident from the complaint and the 30-day removal period was not 

triggered. 

 Plaintiff argues that it had a conversation with Defendant on December 7, 2016, 

and that Defendant was or could have been aware of a basis for removal on that date. 

Doc. 8 at 4; Doc. 19 at 2. But this alleged conversation occurred before Plaintiff served 

Defendant with the summons and complaint, so the removal period could not have begun 

on that date. See Murphy, 526 U.S. at 355. Nor did it begin on the date of service 

because the complaint did not disclose a basis for removal. 

 The Ninth Circuit has rejected Plaintiff’s argument that Defendant was required to 

conduct an inquiry into removability. Harris, 425 F.3d at 698. Defendant had no duty to 

investigate Plaintiff’s citizenship, and did not receive “an amended pleading, motion, 

order or other paper” that revealed a basis for removal. See id. at 694. Thus, the 30-day 

removal period was not triggered by the December 7 conversation or by service of the 

summons and complaint. Although it is true that Defendant did conduct its own 

investigation into Plaintiff’s citizenship and removed on that basis, this fact does not alter 

the running of the 30-day deadline. A defendant may file a notice of removal based on its 

own conclusions from investigation. Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 

1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013). 

 Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendant is a citizen of Delaware and California. 

Doc. 1 at 2; Docs. 8, 19. Nor does Plaintiff dispute that it has two members who are 

Arizona citizens and that it is a citizen of Arizona. Doc. 18 at 2. Instead, Plaintiff argues 

that Defendant “offers no evidence to supports its presumption” regarding Plaintiff’s 

citizenship, and that this “remains an issue for the Court to determine[.]” Doc. 19 at 4. 

But Defendant has timely alleged a basis for removal that Plaintiff does not dispute, and 

Plaintiff cannot “prevent or delay removal by failing to reveal information showing 

Case 2:17-cv-00121-DGC Document 20 Filed 03/02/17 Page 3 of 5
- 4 - 

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 

removability and then objecting to removal when the defendant has discovered that 

information on its own.” Roth, 720 F.3d at 1125. 

2. The amount in controversy is satisfied.

Plaintiff does not expressly dispute that the amount-in-controversy requirement is 

met, but seems to argue that Defendant is improperly calculating Plaintiff’s damages. 

Doc. 19 at 4-5. Plaintiff seeks both specific performance of an order for goods worth 

$90,653.09 (Doc. 1-2 at 6 ¶ 16) and recovery of “the market price at the time of 

repudiation, less the contract price and any expenses saved, plus any incidental or 

consequential damages” (id., ¶¶ 26-28). Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages, interest on 

that sum “at the highest rate allowable by law,” and its costs and attorneys’ fees. Id. at 8. 

The amount-in-controversy – the cost of performing the contract, the market price at the 

time of the breach, interest, damages, and attorneys’ fees – exceeds $75,000. 

B. Defendant’s notice of removal was not procedurally defective. 

Plaintiff argues that Defendant’s notice of removal was procedurally defective 

because Defendant did not provide the Arizona state court “with notice of its 

representation in this matter.” Doc. 8 at 4. But Plaintiff provides no evidence that 

Defendant failed to comply with § 1446(d), and cites no authority for the proposition that 

failure to comply with state notice-of-appearance rules can defeat removal under federal 

law. Doc. 8 at 3-5. 

 Plaintiff argues that it should not be deprived of its choice of forum. Although it 

is true that there is a “strong presumption” against removal and “[f]ederal jurisdiction 

must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance,” 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992), a defendant may invoke federal 

jurisdiction when removal is proper under § 1441 and the defendant complies with the 

procedures of § 1446, as Defendant has here. 

 Finally, Plaintiff argues that removal is improper because the outcome of this case 

“would be substantially the same” in state court, litigating in state court will not be 

“oppressive or vexatious” for Defendant, and Defendant’s “end goal” is to transfer the 

Case 2:17-cv-00121-DGC Document 20 Filed 03/02/17 Page 4 of 5
- 5 - 

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 

case to California. Doc. 8 at 6. Plaintiff cites no authority to suggest that any of these 

considerations makes removal improper. 

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for remand (Doc. 8) is denied. The 

parties’ requests for attorneys’ fees are denied. 

 Dated this 2nd day of March, 2017. 

Case 2:17-cv-00121-DGC Document 20 Filed 03/02/17 Page 5 of 5