Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01004/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01004-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Insurance 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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

CLYDE TERRY, an individual,

and ANNE TERRY, an individual,

2:06-CV-1004-MCE GGH

Plaintiffs,

v. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THE TRAVELERS INDEMNITY

COMPANY of CONNECTICUT, a

Corporation; and KENNEL PAK, a

Corporation; and GENTZLER &

SMITH ASSOCIATES, a

Corporation,

Defendants.

----oo0oo----

Through the present Motion, Plaintiffs Clyde Terry and Anne

Terry (“Plaintiffs”) seek to remand this action to the Superior

Court of California for the County of Solano on the ground that

the Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut, Kennel Pak, and

Gentzler & Smith Associates’ (“Defendants”) removal of this

action is untimely. 

Case 2:06-cv-01004-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 08/14/06 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

Because oral argument will not be of material assistance, 1

the Court orders this matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal.

Local Rule 78-230(h). 

2

For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand is

denied.1

BACKGROUND

On March 27, 2006, Plaintiffs commenced an action in the

Superior Court alleging breach of contract, negligence, negligent

misrepresentation, fraud, and bad faith. On March 30, 2006, a

Summons and Complaint were deposited in the United States mail,

first class postage pre-paid, to each Defendant together with a

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt (“Acknowledgment”). Dwyer

Decl., ¶ 3. While all Defendants confirm they received

Plaintiffs’ Summons and Complaint, none of the Defendants signed

or returned the Acknowledgment. Echeguren Decl., ¶ 3; Bickel

Decl., ¶ 2. On May 8, 2006, Gentzler & Smith and Kennel Pak

filed a Notice of Removal. Defendant Travelers Indemnity Company

of Connecticut joined in that removal. Plaintiffs then filed the

present Motion to Remand. 

STANDARD

A defendant may remove any civil action from state court to

federal district court if the district court has original

jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

///

Case 2:06-cv-01004-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 08/14/06 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

Generally, district courts have original jurisdiction over civil

actions in two instances: (1) where there is complete diversity

between the parties, or (2) where a federal question is presented

in an action arising under the Constitution, federal law, or

treaty. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. 

The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389,

1393 (9th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, courts construe the removal

statute strictly against removal. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.

Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). If there is any

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance, remand

must be granted. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Therefore, if it

appears before final judgment that a district court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded to state court. 

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a defendant may remove any

civil action by filing a notice of removal “within thirty days

after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise,

of a copy of the initial pleading.” The United States Supreme

Court has clarified that mere receipt of a Summons and Complaint

unattended by any formal service is insufficient to trigger the

thirty day removal period. Murphy Bros., Inc., v. Michetti Pipe

Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999). Service can be

made pursuant to the law of the state in which the district court

is located, the law of the state in which service is effected, or

under federal law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(h)(1).

///

Case 2:06-cv-01004-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 08/14/06 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

 See e.g. Mauldin v. Blackhawk Area Credit Union, 2002 2

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143, No. 01 C 50221, 2002 WL 23830, *1 (N.D.

Ill. 2002)(holding that “the thirty-day removal technically never

really began” since the defendant was not properly served with

process, “meaning [the defendant’s] notice of removal was

timely”); Heredia v. Transp. S.A.S., Inc., 101 F. Supp. 2d 158,

160 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (“Once a defendant receives a copy of the

initial pleading--in this case, the summons and complaint--the

thirty-day period for filing notice of removal is triggered,

provided that service of the initial pleading is proper.”).

4

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs’ salient contention is that Defendants’ removal

was untimely because it was filed more than thirty days after

receipt of the Summons and Complaint in the present action.

Defendants essentially concede the foregoing but aver that the

Notice of Removal was nonetheless timely because the Summons and

Complaint were not attended by effective process as required

under Murphy. This lack of process, they contend, precludes the

running of the thirty day removal period rendering the removal in

this action timely. The Court agrees.

Following Murphy Brothers, numerous courts have recognized

that the relevant date for gauging timeliness of removal is the

date on which proper service was effected. See Big B Auto. 2

Warehouse Distribs., Inc. v. Cooperative Computing, Inc., 2000

U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16363 (D. Cal. 2000); see also Brown v.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 27445 (D. Miss.

2002). Thus, it is not enough for Plaintiffs to show that

Defendants actually received a copy of the complaint by a

particular date. Rather, Plaintiffs must demonstrate compliance

with the requirements of service. Big B Auto. Warehouse

Distribs., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16363.

Case 2:06-cv-01004-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 08/14/06 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

California’s general service by mail statute provides: “A

copy of the summons and of the complaint shall be mailed (by

first-class mail or airmail, postage prepaid) to the person to be

served, together with two copies of the notice and acknowledgment

provided for in subdivision (b) and a return envelope, postage

prepaid, addressed to the sender.” Cal. Civ. Proc. § 415.30(a). 

Service by mail under Cal. Civ. Proc. § 415.30 is effective when

written acknowledgment of receipt of the summons is returned to

the sender, and the date of service is the date the

acknowledgment is executed. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 415.30(c).

Plaintiffs appear to have attempted to serve Defendants

pursuant to § 415.30. It is undisputed that Plaintiffs complied

with the service requirements of § 415.30, however, service was

never completed because Defendants did not sign or return the

Acknowledgment. Cal. Civ. Proc. § 415.30(c). Accordingly, the

mailing of the Summons and Complaint on March 30, 2006, did not

trigger the thirty day removal period. 

Having given due weight to the fact that the federal removal

statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction, the

Court finds that proper service was not effected rendering

Defendants’ removal timely. Accordingly, remand is not warranted

in the present action.

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 2:06-cv-01004-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 08/14/06 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

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, Plaintiffs’ Motion to

Remand is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: August 14, 2006

_____________________________

MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 2:06-cv-01004-MCE -GGH Document 40 Filed 08/14/06 Page 6 of 6