Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00284/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00284-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
AAC Holdings, Inc.
Defendant
American Addiction Centers, Inc.
Defendant
Michael Nanko
Defendant
Melissa Pennel
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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELISSA PENNEL,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMERICAN ADDICTION CENTERS, 

INC., a Nevada Corporation, 

AAC HOLDINGS, INC., a Nevada 

Corporation, MICHAEL NANKO, 

an individual, and DOES 1 

through 24, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND

On September 20, 2019, Melissa Pennel (“Plaintiff”) filed a 

complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court against her former 

employer, American Addiction Centers, Inc., alleging numerous 

wage and hour violations, as well as pregnancy discrimination. 

Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1 at 2. She thereafter amended the 

complaint to add AAC Holdings, Inc. as a Defendant. Id. AAC 

Holdings then filed a notice of removal, invoking the Court’s 

diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446. 

Id. At issue is Plaintiff’s motion to remand, alleging the 

removal was untimely. Mot., ECF No. 9, at 1. AAC Holdings and 

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 1 of 8
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

American Addictions Centers Inc. (“collectively Defendants”) 

oppose this motion. ECF No. 13. For the reasons described 

below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand.1

I. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff worked at American Addiction Centers from May 13, 

2018 until March 26, 2019, when she was allegedly terminated for 

being pregnant. Not. of Removal, Exh. A, FAC ¶¶ 10-25. 

Defendants American Addiction Centers and AAC Holdings are both

incorporated in Nevada and operate out of the same office in 

Tennessee. Mot. 2. Both companies list the same president, 

director, and treasurer. Id. They also share the same website. 

Id. at 3. 

After filing her Amended Complaint against Defendants, 

Plaintiff first served American Addiction Centers on January 6, 

2020. Mot. at 2. Plaintiff personally delivered a copy of the 

summons and complaint to “Registered Agent Solutions, Inc.,” at 

the address listen on American Addiction Centers’ filings on the

California Secretary of State Website. Id. The next day, 

Plaintiff also served AAC Holdings via “Registered Agent 

Solutions Inc,” as it listed the same registered agent as 

American Addictions Center. Id. However, because AAC Holdings 

is registered in Nevada, it listed Registered Agent Solutions, 

Inc.’s Las Vegas, Nevada office as the address for service. Id. 

AAC Holdings filed its notice of removal on February 6, 2020—

exactly thirty days from when American Addiction Center was 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was 

scheduled for May 5, 2020.

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 2 of 8
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

served, but thirty-one days from when it was personally served. 

Id. Plaintiff then filed her motion to remand on March 3, 2020. 

Id. at 1. 

II. JUDICIAL NOTICE

Both Parties ask the Court to take judicial notice of 

several documents. See Plf’s Req. for Judicial Notice (“RJN”), 

ECF No. 9-1, see also Def’s RJN, ECF No. 14. Specifically, 

Plaintiff asks the Court to take judicial notice of ten webpages 

pertaining to Defendants’ entity information on the U.S. 

Securities and Exchange Commission’s Websites; the California, 

Nevada and Tennessee Secretary of State Websites; and the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office. Plf’s RJN at 5. She also 

asks the Court to take judicial notice of six webpages on 

Defendant American Addiction Centers’ website. Id. at 1-4. 

Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of Plaintiff’s 

“Proof of Service and Summons” as to Defendant AAC Holdings filed 

on February 3, 2020 with the Sacramento Superior Court. Def’s 

RJN at 1. Neither Party opposes the others’ requests. 

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201, a district court may take 

judicial notice of a fact that is “not subject to reasonable 

dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from 

sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” Fed. R. 

Evid. 201(b)(2). A court may therefore take judicial notice of 

court filings and other matters of public record. Reyn’s Pasta 

Bella LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 

2006). Accordingly, because the Parties seek judicial notice of 

documents that are matters of public record and because the 

requests are unopposed, the Court GRANTS these requests. 

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 3 of 8
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

4

However, the Court may only take judicial notice of the existence 

of these documents, but not of the truth asserted in them. Von 

Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena, 592 F.3d 954, 

960 (9th Cir. 2010).

III. OPINION

The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing 

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

1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id. However, 

“[t]he statutory time limit for removal petitions is merely a 

formal and modal requirement and is not jurisdictional.” 

Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals, Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 

1980).

“The right to remove a case to federal court is entirely a 

creature of statute.” Tejada v. Sugar Foods Corp., No. cv 10-

05186 MMM, 2010 WL 4256242, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2020). A 

defendant may remove a case originally filed in state court, if 

it presents a federal question or if it is subject to diversity 

jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The defendant must remove 

the case within 30 days of receiving either a copy of the 

initial pleading or after the service of the summons. 28 USC 

§ 1446(b)(1). If there are multiple defendants, each defendant 

has 30 days to remove the case. Id. at § 1446(B). The 

nonmoving party then has 30 days to file a motion to remand on 

the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction. 28 USC § 1447(c).

Sufficiency of service of process prior to removal is 

strictly governed by state law. See Tejada, 2010 WL 4256242, at 

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 4 of 8
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

*3 (quoting Lee v. City of Beaumont, 12 F.3d 933, 936-37 (9th 

Cir. 1993). Under California law, a corporation may be served 

by delivering a copy of the summons and the complaint (a) “the 

person designated as an agent for service of process” or (b) “a 

person authorized by the corporation to receive service of 

process.” Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 416.10 (West 2007). 

Plaintiff does not dispute that Defendants have met their 

burden of establishing federal jurisdiction exists in this 

matter. Instead, Plaintiff disputes whether the removal was 

timely. Mot. at 1. Plaintiff alleges the removal was untimely 

because AAC Holdings was actually served on January 6, 2020 

since Defendants share the same agent for service of process and 

operate as a single entity. Id. at 6. Defendants contend 

Plaintiff erroneously disregards the well-established principle

that “each defendant has 30 days” to file a notice of removal. 

Opp’n at 1. Neither Party cites authority directly on the issue 

of whether serving a defendant via the same registered agent the 

day prior, starts the removal clock for the other defendant 

despite being separately served. But the Court finds 

Defendants’ argument to be more persuasive. 

Prior to 2011, Courts were split between two potential 

approaches to determining whether a notice of removal met the 

thirty-day time limitation in a case with multiple defendants 

that were served at separate times. See Desfino v. Reiswig, 630 

F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2011)(discussing the split in 

authority). Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit adopted the “laterserved rule,” which grants each defendant its own thirty days to 

remove after being served. Id. This approach was later adopted 

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 5 of 8
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

by Congress, as is reflected in Section 1446(b)(2)(B). 

Accordingly, absent clear authority to the contrary, a plain 

reading of the statute weighs in favor of Defendants. Defendant 

AAC Holdings had its own “30 days after . . . service on [it] of 

the summons . . . to file the notice of removal.” 28 USC 

§ 1446(B).

The Court acknowledges that under California law “the 

statutory provisions regarding service of process should be 

liberally construed to effectuate service and uphold the 

jurisdiction of the court if actual notice has been received by 

the defendant.” Gibble v. Car-Lene Research, Inc., 67 Cal. App. 

4th 295, 313 (1998). But the cases Plaintiff cites that 

liberally construe service of process, all involve Defendants 

who allege they were not properly served at all. See, e.g., 

Team Enterprises, LLC v. Western Inv. Real Estate Trust, No. 

CV F 08-1050 LJO SMS, 2008 WL 4367560, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 

23, 2008) (finding service to be sufficient when defendant was 

only served at a business “that ha[s] the same address” and same 

president). Plaintiff does not cite any cases involving two 

defendants who are independently served and service on one of 

them starts the removal clock for the other. Notably, all but 

one of the cases Plaintiff relies on in support of her argument 

were decided prior to the Ninth Circuit and Congress’ adoption 

of the “later-served rule.” See Mot. and Reply. The one post 

later served rule case Plaintiff does cite is only for a 

footnote in the opinion stating that the removal time 

requirement is mandatory—a proposition that Defendants do not 

dispute. See Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA Ltd. Liab. Co., 

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 6 of 8
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

7

707 F.3d 1136, 1142 n.4 (9th Cir. 2013). While Defendants bear 

the burden of establishing removal is proper, they have 

established federal jurisdiction exists and timeliness “is not 

jurisdictional,” Fristoe, 615 F.2d at 1212 (9th Cir. 1980). 

The Court finds Defendant AAC Holdings was served on 

January 7, 2020—not January 6, 2020—and therefore met the 

mandatory time limit requirement for removal. See Shop 

Ironworkers Local 790 Pension Trust v. Cofab Steel Corp., No. CV 

07-2500 JSW, 2009 WL 1202030, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2009)

(stating that even when “the party has actual notice of the 

suit,” plaintiff bears the burden of proving “facts requisite to 

an effective service”). 

Lastly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s alter ego argument in 

the alternative does not apply since Rule 4(h) is a federal 

rule, See Mot. at 7 (citing Hickory Travel Sys. v. TUI AG, 213 

F.R.D. 547, 552 (N.D. Cal. 2003)(stating “sufficiency of process 

in federal courts is determined by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.”)) and in cases involving removal 

jurisdiction service of process prior to removal is governed by 

state law. See Opp’n at 5; see also Gray v. Extended Stay 

America, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-01269-MCE-EFB, 2020 WL 1274265, at *4

(E.D. Cal. March 17, 2020) (“When service of process becomes 

effective is governed by state law.”). Accordingly, since the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure apply to a civil action only 

after it is removed from state court, the Court need not 

consider this argument. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 81(c)(1). 

///

///

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 7 of 8
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

8

IV. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 8, 2020

Case 2:20-cv-00284-JAM-KJN Document 18 Filed 06/08/20 Page 8 of 8