Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04998/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-04998-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JONI BAKER, aka F. JOAN

BAKER,

Plaintiff(s),

v.

TARGET CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendant(s).

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 07-4998 BZ

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND

Plaintiff has moved to remand, asserting that defendant

failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) by not filing a

timely notice of removal. Defendant removed on September 27,

2007, the day it deposed plaintiff’s husband who testified

about her damages. Plaintiff claims that the amount in

question could have been determined from the interrogatory

answers defendant received on August 23, 2007. Defendant

claims it could not discern the amount in question until

September 27, 2007, when they deposed the husband. 

A case can only be removed within 30 days of the receipt

of a paper “from which it may first be ascertained that the

Case 3:07-cv-04998-BZ Document 21 Filed 12/17/07 Page 1 of 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

2

case is one which is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. §

1446(b). “[N]otice of removability under § 1446(b) is

determined through an examination of the four corners of the

applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a

duty to make further inquiry.” Harara v. Landamerica Financial

Group Inc., 2007 WL 2938172 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007);

quoting Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689,

694 (9th Cir. 2005). 

I have reviewed plaintiff’s interrogatory answers and

find that if plaintiff had wanted to put defendant on notice

that her claim met the $75,000 jurisdictional amount, she

could have done so by answering question 8.7, which asks for

her total income loss. Instead, plaintiff gave her monthly

loss, answered other interrogatories from which she claims

defendant could calculate the duration of her income loss and

now faults defendant for not performing sufficient

calculations to determine what plaintiff did not when she

failed to answer 8.7.

Based only upon the four corners of the interrogatory

answers, I find it is not ascertainable that the case was

removable. Therefore, defendant filed a timely notice of

removal and plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED.

Dated: December 17, 2007

 Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Baker v. Target\ORDER.DENYING.MOT.TO.REMAND.FINAL.wpd

Case 3:07-cv-04998-BZ Document 21 Filed 12/17/07 Page 2 of 2