Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02926/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-02926-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Citizens Telecom Services Co.
Defendant
Frontier Communications Corporation
Defendant
Kevin Mailloux
Defendant
Phyllis Whitten
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PHYLLIS WHITTEN,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS

CORPORATION, a Delaware

corporation; CITIZENS TELECOM

SERVICES CO.; KEVIN MAILLOUX;

and Does 1 through 10,

inclusive,

 Defendants.

________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2:12-cv-02926-GEB-JFM

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

REMAND

Plaintiff moves to remand this case to the Superior Court of

California, County of Sacramento, arguing that “[r]emoval was untimely[,

and c]omplete diversity of citizenship does not exist.” (Pl.’s Mem. P.

& A. Supp. Mot. Remand (“Mot.”) 3:25-26, ECF No. 9.) Defendants oppose

the motion. 

Plaintiffs contend that removal was untimely because it was

not completed “within thirty (30) days of Defendants’ receipt of the

complaint in this matter.” (Mot. 1:20-21.) However, Plaintiff has not

shown that “mere receipt of the complaint unattended by any formal

service” triggers “a named defendant’s time to remove.” Murphy Bros.,

Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 (1999); accord

Quality Loan Serv. Corp. v. 24702 Pallas Way, 635 F.3d 1128, 1138 (9th

Cir. 2011). Therefore, this portion of Plaintiff’s motion is denied. 

1

Case 2:12-cv-02926-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiff also argues “Plaintiff Phyllis Whitten and Defendant

Kevin Mailloux are both citizens (“domiciliaries”) of California, thus

defeating diversity.” (Mot. 1:20-23.) Plaintiff contends certain sworn

averments by Defendant Kevin Mailloux support her argument that he is

domiciled in California. (Mot. 2:27-3:23.) For example, Mailloux

declares that when he was recruited by Defendant Frontier Communications

Corporation “to work as the Director of Human Resources for the West

Region[,] . . . [he] was required to move from Arizona to work out of

the Company’s West Region corporate headquarters that is currently

located in Elk Grove, California.” (Mailloux Decl. ¶¶2-3, ECF No. 1-2.)

Mailloux also avers that “[a]fter accepting the position with Frontier,

[he] signed a one-year renewable lease on an apartment in Elk Grove,

California . . . .” (Id. at ¶4.)

Defendants rejoin that “Plaintiff’s argument that Mr. Mailloux

is a domiciliary of California, rather than Arizona, fails because [it]

ignores nearly every objective fact contained in [his] Declaration . . .

that establishes [his] present intent to return to Arizona, including,

but not limited to, his voter registration, location of real property,

location of family, driver’s license, and automobile registration.”

(Defs.’ Opp’n 1:27-2:3, ECF No. 10.) Specifically, Defendants argue:

Mr. Mailloux is registered to vote in the State of

Arizona, not California. Second, and perhaps most

importantly, Mr. Mailloux’s wife and two children

all reside in the home he owns in Scottsdale,

Arizona, and he spends nearly every other weekend

with his family in Scottsdale, Arizona. Third,

nearly all of Mr. Mailloux’s personal assets,

including all of his bank accounts, are located in

Arizona. When he accepted the new position with

Frontier, he brought only his clothes, his car, and

some basic personal necessities. Fourth, Mr.

Mailloux has a valid Arizona driver’s license

indicating his home address in Scottsdale, Arizona,

and his car is registered with the State of

Arizona. Fifth, Mr. Mailloux is a member of the St.

Patrick’s Church in Scottsdale, Arizona, and

2

Case 2:12-cv-02926-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 2 of 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

maintains a membership at a fitness gym located in

Arizona. Finally, Mr. Mailloux pays his property

taxes in the State of Arizona and continues to file

all of his income tax returns with the State of

Arizona.

(Id. at 7:8-20 (internal citations omitted).) 

Defendants have shown diversity of citizenship since the

balance of facts contained in Mailloux’s uncontroverted declaration do

not evince an “intention to remain” in California “indefinitely.” Lew v.

Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 750 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Kanter v. WarnerLambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001) (“A person’s domicile is

h[is] permanent home, where []he resides with the intention to remain or

to which []he intends to return.”). 

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No.

9) is denied. 

Dated: March 29, 2013

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

Senior United States District Judge

3

Case 2:12-cv-02926-TLN-EFB Document 15 Filed 03/29/13 Page 3 of 3