Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00751/USCOURTS-cand-5_10-cv-00751-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

For the Northern District of California 

**E-filed 04/28/2010** 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SAN JOSE DIVISION 

THERESA D. LARA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

CEMDAR II ENTERPRISES, et al., 

 Defendants. 

____________________________________/

No. C 10-0751 RS 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND 

 This action was removed from Santa Clara Superior Court by defendants Santa Clara 

County, Sheriff Laurie Smith, and Deputy Sheriff Craig (collectively “the County”). Co-defendants 

Edmundo and Jean Damasco, who did not join in the notice of removal, now move to remand. 

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), this matter is suitable for disposition without oral argument. 

 The Damascos’ contention that the County’s removal was untimely fails, because the period 

in which removal must be effected runs from service or other notice to the defendant of the 

complaint, not its mere filing. 28 U.S.C.§ 1446 (b).1

 Their contention, however, that remand is 

warranted because they never consented to the removal is meritorious. See Hewitt v. City of 

 

1

 Under the “first served” rule, the time for removal expires 30 days after service on any defendant. 

United Computer Systems, Inc. v. AT & T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 762-763 (9th Cir. 2002). Thus, it is 

possible that the County’s removal was untimely, but the Damascos have failed to establish when 

they or other defendants were served. 

Case 5:10-cv-00751-RS Document 14 Filed 04/28/10 Page 1 of 2
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

For the Northern District of California 

Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230 (9th Cir. 1986) (“All defendants must join in a removal petition with the 

exception of nominal parties.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

 The County contends it could not obtain the Damascos’ joinder in the removal notice 

because at the time it lacked information as to which defendants, if any, had been served. While 

that may have been so, and an appropriate statement to include in the removal notice, it does not 

somehow relieve the County from the obligation of obtaining the consent of all served defendants to 

the removal within the statutory time frame. See Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 

1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999). 

 Finally, the County requests that it be given leave to amend its removal notice to cure any 

defects. Given that the Damascos have brought this motion to remand, it is clear that the County is 

not going to succeed in obtaining their consent to the removal, and therefore cannot cure the defect, 

even assuming it were not otherwise too late to do so. This action is hereby remanded to Santa 

Clara County Superior Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated:04/28/2010 

RICHARD SEEBORG 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 5:10-cv-00751-RS Document 14 Filed 04/28/10 Page 2 of 2