Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03689/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-03689-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY ATKINSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

URBAN LAND PRESERVATION, LLC, ET AL.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03689-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 11

Plaintiff filed his initial complaint in state court on July 22, 2014. (Dkt. No. 11 at 2.) On 

August 12, 2015, defendants Urban Land Preservation, LLC and John Rowell filed a notice of 

removal. (Dkt. No. 1.) The notice of removal alleges diversity jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 

1332(a)(1), based on complete diversity between the parties—with plaintiff a purported Nevada 

resident and defendants as California residents—and an amount in controversy in excess of $20 

million. (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 3.) On September 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to remand, which the 

Court now considers. (Dkt. No. 11.)1

A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if the action could have 

 

1

The Court has determined that the motion is appropriate for decision without oral 

argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See 

also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th 

Cir. 1991). The hearing was previously vacated. (Dkt. No. 21.) Thereafter, the Court issued an 

Order to Show Cause to confirm diversity jurisdiction was proper in light of the citizenship of the 

members of defendant Urban Land Preservation, LLC. (Dkt. No. 22.) Defendants satisfied the 

Order to Show Cause with a response indicating all members of the LLC were, at all relevant 

times, California residents, establishing complete diversity. (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff filed a reply 

thereto, without leave, asking that the removal petition be “dismissed with prejudice” as defective 

for failing to include those allegations. The request is DENIED. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners 

Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1193 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding “the district court 

cannot remand sua sponte for defects in removal procedure,” only for a lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction) (emphasis in original). In the same reply, plaintiff requested leave to “re-submit” his 

pending motion to remand on the same grounds raised in the current motion. The request to file 

another untimely motion for remand, without any proffered basis, is likewise DENIED.

Case 4:15-cv-03689-YGR Document 27 Filed 11/04/15 Page 1 of 3
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

originally been filed in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. A plaintiff may seek to have a case 

remanded to the state court from which it was removed if the district court lacks jurisdiction or if 

there is a defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A notice of removal must be 

filed within 30 days of service of the initial complaint, or “if the case stated by the initial pleading 

is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the defendant, 

through service or otherwise, of a copy 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. The removal statutes are generally construed restrictively, so as to limit removal 

jurisdiction. See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941).

A district court must remand a case if it appears before final judgment that the court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). There is typically a strong presumption against 

finding removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden 

of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal. See 

Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004). Doubts as to removability are 

generally resolved in favor of remanding the case to state court. See Matheson v. Progressive 

Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). However, “[a] motion to remand the case 

on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be made within 30 

days after the filing of the notice of removal under section 1446(a).” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Plaintiff’s motion does not dispute the jurisdictional allegations, but rather argues the 

removal was untimely, coming more than a year after the case was initiated in state court. 

However, plaintiff’s motion to remand was itself untimely filed, having been submitted forty days 

following the notice of removal—ten days past the statutory deadline.

In responding to the substance of plaintiff’s argument, defendants contend they neither 

knew nor had reason to know that plaintiff was not a resident of California until after the receipt of 

certain discovery responses received within the thirty days immediately preceding removal. (Dkt. 

No. 1 ¶¶ 5-6.) The parties dispute whether defendants made diligent efforts to ascertain plaintiff’s 

residency during the preceding year of litigation. Nevertheless, the Court need not reach the 

merits of plaintiff’s motion to remand where, as here, the motion was untimely filed and subject 

Case 4:15-cv-03689-YGR Document 27 Filed 11/04/15 Page 2 of 3
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

matter jurisdiction is undisputed and sufficiently established. Plaintiff argues—against the plain 

language of the statute and without citation to any supporting legal authority—that the thirty day 

period within which plaintiff was required to move to remand only started running after the case 

was reassigned from a magistrate judge to the undersigned. The Court disagrees with this 

apparently novel interpretation of the statute. See Kamm v. ITEX Corp., 568 F.3d 752, 755-56

(9th Cir. 2009) (noting a motion to remand premised upon a purported defect in the notice of 

removal, such as the removing party’s failure to file its notice within the statutory period, must be 

filed within thirty days following the notice); Maniar v. F.D.I.C., 979 F.2d 782, 784-85 (9th Cir. 

1992) (holding “untimely removal is a procedural defect and not jurisdictional, and that § 1447(c) 

limits a district court’s power to remand a case sua sponte for such a procedural defect”). Thus, 

the Court DENIES the motion to remand as untimely. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 11.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 4, 2015

______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:15-cv-03689-YGR Document 27 Filed 11/04/15 Page 3 of 3