Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02820/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-02820-1/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARILEE McGREGOR,

Plaintiff(s),

 vs.

AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOCIATION, et al.

, Defendant(s). /

No. C 07-2820 MEJ

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO REMAND

ORDER VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is Plaintiff Marilee McGregor's Motion to Remand. (Doc. #5.) In her

motion, Plaintiff argues that Defendant American Diabetes Association's Notice of Removal was

untimely because she served her Complaint via U.S. mail on April 24, 2007, and Defendant did not

remove the action to this Court until May 30, 2007, more than 30 days later. However, the 30-day

period does not run from the date Plaintiff mailed the complaint; rather, a defendant must file a

notice of removal within 30 days after the receipt of the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); see also

Murphy Bros., Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 354 (1999). Here, Defendant's

registered agent for service of process, CT Corporation, received the Summons and Complaint on

May 1, 2007. (Doc. #1, Ex. D; Doc. #14, ¶5.) Accordingly, Defendant's removal is timely.

Plaintiff also argues that CT Corporation's Service of Process Transmittal Form, attached as

Exhibit D to Defendant's Notice of Removal, is hearsay. However, the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. §

1446(a), does not make removal dependent upon admissible evidence. All that the statute requires is

Case 3:07-cv-02820-MEJ Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

 Plaintiff also cites to Civil Local Rule 7-5(b), which concerns declarations in support of or in

opposition to any motion in this Court, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e), which concerns

declarations related to summary judgment motions. As neither of these rules governs a notice of

removal, it is unclear why Plaintiff cites to them.

Page 2 of 3

"a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, together with a copy of all process,

pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant or defendants in such action." Id. Further, the

notice or removal must be signed by the attorney subject to the certification requirements of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 11, thus requiring a reasonable inquiry into jurisdictional facts asserted. Id.

Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has complied with the removal requirements.1

In the alternative, Plaintiff argues that CT Corporation's transmittal form proves that

Defendant's Notice of Removal was untimely. Plaintiff's counsel mailed the complaint on CT

Corporation in Los Angeles, but the transmittal form states that process was served on CT

Corporation in its Walnut Creek location on May 1, 2007. Speculating that the transmittal form was

received in Walnut Creek on May 1, Plaintiff contends it must have been received in the Los

Angeles office prior to May 1. In response, Defendant states that the Walnut Creek office is a sales

office and has nothing to do with service of process. Defendant argues that the transmittal form is

incorrect - the Walnut Creek office never received the complaint. 

The Court finds that Plaintiff's alternative argument is also without merit. CT Corporation's

transmittal form provides as follows:

On Whom Process Was Served: CT Corporation System, Walnut Creek, CA

Date And Hour of Service: By Regular Mail on 05/01/2007

Post Marked: postmarked on 04/24/2007

* * *

Signed: CT Corporation System

Per: Dianne Christman

Address: 818 West Seventh Street

 Los Angeles

 CA, 90017

(Doc. #1, Ex. D.)

Case 3:07-cv-02820-MEJ Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 Page 3 of 3

Despite Plaintiff's argument to the contrary, this information does not show that CT

Corporation was served in Walnut Creek. While the transmittal form provides that CT Corporation

may also be located in Walnut Creek, the form clearly states that service occurred in its Los Angeles

location on May 1, 2007. 

Based on the above analysis, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. Further,

although both parties seek attorneys' fees and/or sanctions related to Plaintiff's motion, the Court

finds they are unwarranted and DENIES their requests. The scheduled August 9, 2007 hearing is

vacated. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2007 

MARIA-ELENA JAMES

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02820-MEJ Document 18 Filed 07/30/07 Page 3 of 3