Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00599/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-00599-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Employment Discrimination

---

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

Case No. C 05-00599 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND

(JFEX2)

** E-filed on 7/27/05 **

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

MARY SNOW,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

AT&T CORPORATION, NATALIE CLINTON,

and DOES 1-25, inclusive,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-00599 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO REMAND

[Docket No. 6]

Plaintiff Mary Snow (“Snow”) moves to remand the instant action to the Santa Clara

Superior Court. Defendants oppose the motion. The Court has read the moving and responding

papers and has considered the oral arguments of counsel presented on July 22, 2005. For the

reasons set forth below, the motion to remand will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

Snow is a former employee of Defendant AT&T Corporation (“AT&T”), where she was

supervised by Defendant Natalie Clinton (“Clinton”). Snow alleges that she was being

considered for a promotion, but that Clinton recommended her for termination upon learning that

she was absent on maternity leave. Snow was terminated by AT&T on April 30, 2004. On

December 8, 2004, Snow filed an action against AT&T and Clinton (collectively “Defendants”)

Case 5:05-cv-00599-JF Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 1 of 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

1

 In her original motion, Snow also argued that Defendants failed to sufficiently establish

diversity. However, Snow withdrew this argument in her reply brief.

2

Case No. C 05-00599 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(JFEX2)

in the Santa Clara County Superior Court, alleging various state law claims for employment

discrimination, wrongful termination, unfair business practices and intentional infliction of

emotional distress. Snow mailed a copy of the summons and complaint to AT&T on December

30, 2004. Enclosed with the service packet was a “Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt”

form (“the Form”) that AT&T was to sign, date, and return to Snow in order to complete service. 

AT&T did return the form to Snow. The form contains two spaces that require the recipient to

indicate a date. In this instance, the “Date of receipt” was indicated as January 4, 2005, and the

“Date this form is signed” was indicated as January 19, 2005. Betts Decl., Ex. 1. Clinton was

personally served on January 11, 2005. On February 9, 2005, Defendants removed the action to

this Court on the basis of diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 and 28 U.S.C. §

1332. Snow filed the instant motion to remand the case to state court on March 10, 2005,

alleging that Defendants’ notice of removal was not timely filed.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), often referred to as “the removal statute,” a defendant

may remove an action to federal court if the plaintiff could have filed the action in federal court

initially. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389,

1393 (9th Cir. 1988). A party may file an action in federal court if there is diversity of

citizenship among the parties or if the action raises a substantial federal question. Ethridge, 861

F.2d at 1393. The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal

jurisdiction. Id. The removal statute is strictly construed against removal. Id. The matter

therefore should be remanded if there is any doubt as to the existence of federal jurisdiction. 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 565 (9th Cir. 1992). 

III. DISCUSSION

Snow moves to remand this action to state court on the ground that Defendants’ notice of

removal was not timely filed.1 In a civil action, a notice of removal “shall be filed within thirty

Case 5:05-cv-00599-JF Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 2 of 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

2

 There is no dispute as to the fact that Clinton was personally served on January 11,

2005, and that Defendants’ notice of removal was filed within thirty days thereafter.

3

Case No. C 05-00599 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(JFEX2)

days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial

pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” 28

U.S.C. § 1446(b). The Supreme Court has held that the “defendant’s time to remove is triggered

by simultaneous service of the summons and complaint . . . but not by mere receipt of the

complaint unattended by any formal service.” Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing,

Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347-48 (1999). 

The issue before the Court, then, is when the complaint and summons were formally 

served upon AT&T.2 The California Code of Civil Procedure states that “[s]ervice of a summons

. . . is deemed complete on the date a written acknowledgment of receipt of summons is

executed, if such acknowledgment thereafter is returned to the sender.” Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §

414.30(c). Snow argues that the Form was signed, and thus executed, on January 4, 2005, the

date marked on the Form as “Date of receipt.” Snow bases this contention on the fact that the

“Date of receipt” appears on the Form on the same line as the “Signature of person

acknowledging receipt.” Betts Decl., Ex. 1. In this case, thirty days from Snow’s proposed date

of formal service was February 3, 2005, which would render untimely Defendants’ filing of the

notice of removal on February 9, 2005. However, if the “Date of receipt” line was intended to

indicate the date on which the Form was signed, there would be no need to have a separate line

explicitly indicated as the “Date this form is signed.” While the placement of the “Date of

receipt” line adjacent to the “Signature of person acknowledging receipt” line may lend itself to

some confusion, the only reasonable construction of the Form supports a conclusion that the

Form was signed and executed on the date entered on the line marked “Date this form is signed,”

which is January 19, 2005. Thirty days from January 19, 2005 was February 18, 2005, thus

Defendants’ filing of the notice of removal on February 9, 2005 was timely.

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-00599-JF Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 3 of 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

3

 In finding that removal by Defendants was proper, this order renders moot Snow’s

request for attorney’s fees and costs incurred as a result of removal.

4

Case No. C 05-00599 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(JFEX2)

IV. ORDER

Good cause therefore appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Snow’s motion to

remand is DENIED.3

DATED: July 22, 2005

/s/ electronic signature authorized

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-00599-JF Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 4 of 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

5

Case No. C 05-00599 JF

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO DISMISS

(JFEX2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Rod Betts rbetts@paulplevin.com 

Clint J. Brayton cbrayton@schneiderwallace.com 

Melissa Judith Listug Klick mklick@paulplevin.com, dbaranowski@paulplevin.com 

Todd M. Schneider tschneider@schneiderwallace.com 

Case 5:05-cv-00599-JF Document 27 Filed 07/27/05 Page 5 of 5