Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01602/USCOURTS-cand-5_20-cv-01602-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Labor/Mgmnt. Relations

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

RODRIGO TINOCO,

Plaintiff,

v.

WALMART INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 20-cv-01602-BLF 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REMAND

[Re: ECF 11]

Before the Court is Plaintiff Rodrigo Tinoco’s Motion for Remand. Mot. for Remand, 

ECF 11. Tinoco brings this suit against Defendant Walmart Inc. (“Walmart”) alleging a failure to 

accommodate his perceived and/or actual disabilities and wrongful termination of his employment. 

Compl., ECF 1-2. Defendant removed this action from Santa Clara Superior court on diversity 

grounds. Not. of Removal, ECF 1. At issue is whether Defendant’s removal was timely as it was 

filed more than thirty days from receipt of the complaint. The Court finds that the matter is 

suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set on July 2, 2020. For 

the reasons discussed below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff worked for Defendant in the position of Maintenance Associate from June 22, 

2017 to November 2, 2017. Compl. ¶ 6. On or about August 29, 2017, Plaintiff injured his back 

at work and was placed on certain restrictions by his doctor, including limited mobility and lifting. 

Id. ¶ 9. Between August 29, 2017 and October 27, 2017, Plaintiff asserts that he performed the 

essential functions of his position with accommodations for his restrictions. Id. ¶ 10. However, 

on or about November 2, 2017, Defendant allegedly terminated Plaintiff without notice for his 

inability to do his job. Id. ¶ 11. He was told he could reapply when he was “healthy.” Id. 

Case 5:20-cv-01602-BLF Document 14 Filed 06/01/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. 

See generally Compl. Plaintiff alleges six causes of action: (1) Disability Discrimination in 

Violation of the Fair Employment Housing Act (“FEHA”); (2) Failure to Accommodate in 

Violation of the FEHA; (3) Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process in Violation of the FEHA; 

(4) Retaliation in Violation of the FEHA; (5) Failure to Prevent [Discrimination and Retaliation]

in Violation of the FEHA; and (6) Wrongful Termination in Violation of the FEHA. Id. The 

Complaint is silent on the exact amount of monetary damages Plaintiff seeks to recover. Instead, 

the Complaint states the types of damages he is seeking, including compensatory damages, 

punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. Id. The Complaint also does not state how much Plaintiff 

earned while working for Defendant or the duration of time he remained unemployed after his 

termination. Plaintiff provided this information in his response to Form Interrogatories on 

February 21, 2020, stating that he earned $12/hour and had been unemployed since November 2, 

2017. Resps. to Def.’s Form Interrogs. (“Interrogs.”) at 16-17, Exh. B to declaration of Gregory 

Spallas, ECF 13-1. Plaintiff calculates that he has lost $51,840 and will continue to lose $1,920 

per month until he secures employment. Id. at 18. Defendant’s math adds up to a loss of 

$480/week in earnings at a total of $58,560. Not. of Removal ¶ 8. Defendant further extrapolates 

that by the time this matter may come to trial in a year, this amount will increase to $83,520. Id. 

On March 4, 2020, twelve days after receiving Plaintiff’s responses, Defendant filed a 

notice of removal on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. See generally Not. of Removal. Plaintiff 

moved to remand this action back to state court on April 2, 2020, claiming that Defendant’s notice 

was not timely because it was filed more than thirty days after service of the Complaint. Mot. for 

Remand. On April 15, 2020, Defendant filed an opposition, contending that prior to receiving 

Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatories, it was uncertain that the amount in controversy 

exceeded $75,000. Def.’s Opp’n to Pl.’s Mot. for Remand (“Opp’n.”) at 3, ECF 13. Plaintiff did 

not file a reply.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States 

have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court 

Case 5:20-cv-01602-BLF Document 14 Filed 06/01/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is 

pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on 

federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 

1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a)). District courts have diversity jurisdiction 

over all civil actions between citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds 

$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a).

A notice of removal must be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant of a 

copy of the initial pleading, or within 30 days after the service of summons upon the defendant if 

the initial pleading has been filed in court and is not required to be served on the defendant. 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Where the case is not removable in the initial pleading, a notice of removal 

may be filed within thirty days after receipt of “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper 

from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). Removability “is determined through examination of the four corners of the 

applicable pleading, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry.” Harris 

v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co. 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). The amount in controversy 

cannot be established by mere conjecture with unreasonable assumptions. Id.

III. DISCUSSION

The parties do not dispute that complete diversity of citizenship among the parties has been 

established. The parties agree that Tinoco is a citizen of California and Walmart is a citizen of 

Delaware and Arkansas. Not. of Removal ¶ 5; Mot. for Remand at 3. And Plaintiff does not 

challenge that his claims exceed $75,000. 1 See Mot. for Remand (“Walmart has known from the 

time it was served with Plaintiff’s complaint in November 2019 that there was diversity between 

1 The Court notes that Defendant need not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that 

Plaintiff’s claims exceed $75,000. This is because “a defendant’s notice of removal need include 

only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” 

Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 81 (2014). Only after the 

plaintiff contests this allegation must the defendant prove facts supporting the amount in 

controversy allegation by a preponderance of the evidence. Id. at 88; Ibarra v. Manheim 

Investments, Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Here, Plaintiff does not challenge the 

amount in controversy.

Case 5:20-cv-01602-BLF Document 14 Filed 06/01/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the parties and that Plaintiff’s claims exceeded $75,000”). Thus, the only issue in dispute is 

whether Plaintiff’s initial pleading (i.e., Complaint) was clear as to the amount in controversy and 

whether Defendant’s Notice of Removal was timely. 

Plaintiff contends that the removal was untimely because it was clear on the face of the 

Complaint that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, thus triggering the 30-day time 

period to remove the case upon service of the complaint. Mot. for Remand at 5. Defendant 

responds that removal was timely because the amount in controversy became apparent only after

Defendant received Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatories, wherein Plaintiff specified his 

hourly wage and the length of his unemployment. Opp’n at 5. In determining lost wages, 

Defendant argues that without the information about Plaintiff’s hourly wage and unemployment 

period in the initial pleading, and with no other sum of damages mentioned, it was unable to 

deduce how much Plaintiff is seeking in lost wages. Id. at 3. 

Removability under § 1446(b) is to be determined through an analysis of the four corners 

of the applicable pleading, and not through any subject knowledge or further inquiry. Harris, 425 

F.3d at 694. “[J]urisdictional and procedural interests [are] served by a brightline approach” 

restricted to the face of the complaint. Id. at 696. Here, the Court finds that while there may be a 

possibility Defendant could have established that Plaintiff’s monetary damages exceed $75,000 

before receiving Plaintiff’s responses to Form Interrogatories, the amount in controversy was not 

apparent on the face of the Complaint and Defendant was under no obligation to investigate 

further. See McGill v. Home Depot, Inc., No. 15-CV-03029-KA, 2015 WL 5441032, at *3 (N.D. 

Cal. Sept. 15, 2015) (finding notice of removal timely where the complaint “made it possible that 

the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000” but the amount did not become apparent until later); 

see also Harris, 425 F.3d at 696 (rejecting the argument that a case becomes removable where the 

initial pleading provides a “clue” regarding removability).

Plaintiff argues that Defendant has timely removed at least three other similar cases for 

disability discrimination based on the facts presented in those complaints. Mot. for Remand at 5. 

Defendant responds that (1) the three cases Plaintiff cites are factually distinguishable because

those complaints provided more information than in the case at bar and (2) Defendant’s actions in 

Case 5:20-cv-01602-BLF Document 14 Filed 06/01/20 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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

prior cases are irrelevant to the current proceedings. Opp’n at 4. The Court agrees with 

Defendant. On the facts of this case, the amount in controversy was not apparent within the four 

corners of the Complaint and Defendant had no duty to make inquiries. See Sklar v. Orchard 

Supply Company, LLC, No. 5:16-CV-05096-EJD, 2017 WL 1046459, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 

2017) (finding removal was timely where plaintiff’s description of injuries was “too vague to 

prove the amount in controversy” and defendant “could not reasonably have known that the case 

was removable until it received [plaintiff’s] damages statement several months later.”).

Accordingly, the 30-day window for removal began when Defendant received Plaintiff’s 

responses to Form Interrogatories as it was only then that the amount in controversy was apparent 

on the face of the applicable pleading. See Interrogs. at 16-17. Defendant’s March 4, 2020 notice 

of removal was thus timely.

IV. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand at ECF 11. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 1, 2020

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

Case 5:20-cv-01602-BLF Document 14 Filed 06/01/20 Page 5 of 5