UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

LUCKY EMAKPOR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

 

FIRST COAST SECURITY 

SOLUTIONS, INC., 

Defendant. 

 

Case No. 1:18-cv-00157 (TNM) 

MEMORANDUM ORDER 

Before the Court are the Defendant’s Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1; the Plaintiff’s 

Motion to Remand the case back to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, ECF 

No. 6, which is fully briefed; and the parties’ responses to the Court’s sua sponte Order of 

March 15, 2018 seeking briefing on the timeliness of the Defendant’s removal, ECF Nos. 

10 and 14. Upon consideration of the pleadings, relevant law, related legal memoranda in 

opposition and in support, and the entire record, I find that removal was untimely. This 

matter will be remanded to the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. 

On November 16, 2017, Plaintiff Lucky Emakpor filed his pro se claim in the Small 

Claims and Conciliation Branch of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, seeking 

at least $3,600 in funds allegedly improperly withheld from his paycheck. Certified Copy 

of Transfer Order and Docket Sheet, ECF No. 4, at 5, 7. First Coast removed the case to 

federal court on January 24, 2018, citing federal question jurisdiction. Not. of Removal 

¶ 6. First Coast stated that removal was timely as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) as it 

received the summons and complaint on December 26, 2017, and that jurisdiction and 
venue are proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Id. ¶¶ 2, 5-7. Mr. Emakpor, still pro se at the 

time, opposed First Coast’s assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction. Mot. for 

Remand. Because the Superior Court docket showed that service had been effectuated on 

November 22, 2017, seemingly making First Coast’s removal untimely by over a month, I 

ordered First Coast to explain why removal was timely. Minute Order March 15, 2018; 

see also Def.’s Response in Supp. of Timely Removal, ECF No. 10. Mr. Emakpor, through 

retained counsel, has filed an omnibus response to First Coast’s opposition to the motion 

to remand and its response to First Coast’s explanation as to why removal was timely. Pl.’s 

Omnibus Response to Def.’s Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. to Remand, ECF No. 14. 

A notice of removal “shall be filed within 30 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). Removal 

statutes are to be strictly construed, Williams v. Howard Univ., 984 F. Supp. 27, 29 (D.D.C. 

1997), and on a motion to remand, the defendant bears the burden of proving that the court 

has jurisdiction. Phillips v. Corrections Corp. of America, 407 F. Supp. 2d 18, 20 (D.D.C. 

2005) (citing Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)). 

In this case, I do not need to determine whether the Court’s federal question 

jurisdiction is properly invoked because First Coast clearly removed the matter beyond the 

statutorily-prescribed time period. Per District of Columbia Code, 

Actions shall be commenced in the Small Claims and 

Conciliation Branch by the filing of a statement of claim 

. . . . The clerk of the Branch shall, at the request of an 

individual, prepare the statement of claim and other papers 

required to be filed in an action in the Branch . . . . A copy

of the statement of claim and verification shall be made a 

part of the notice to be served upon the defendant named 

therein. The mode of service shall be by the United States 
marshal, as provided by law, or by registered mail or by 

certified mail with return receipt[.] 

D.C. Code § 16-3902. Mr. Emakpor’s Complaint, which he completed using Small Claims 

Form 11, provided a sworn statement of the claim and gave notice of a date and time for a 

hearing to be held on the claim. Certified Copy of Transfer Order and Docket Sheet, 5-7. 

The Complaint also included a Deputy Clerk’s signature to attest to receiving 

Mr. Emakpor’s statement of the claim. Id. at 5. Mr. Emakpor paid for service of the 

statement of claim to be made by certified mail, and the Superior Court docket shows that 

the receipt of service by certified mail was filed on November 22, 2017. Id. at 4, 14-15. 

Thus, it appears that service of process was properly prepared and executed. 

First Coast does not contest that certified mail receipt was filed on November 22, 

2017, or that the recipient of service, Incorp Services, Inc., is First Coast’s registered agent 

in the District of Columbia. Def.’s Response in Supp. of Timely Removal ¶¶ 2,4. Rather, 

First Coast appears to blame its registered agent for not providing it with the appropriate 

documents. Id. ¶ 4 (“While Incorp . . . is First Coast’s registered agent in the District of 

Columbia, First Coast did not receive any notice or copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint in 

November 2017.”); id. ¶ 5 (“On December 21, 2017, Incorp notified First Coast that a 

hearing had been scheduled for January 11, 2018 . . . Incorp provided First Coast notice of 

the hearing, but nothing else.”). This is unacceptable. Service by certified mail is valid 

upon delivery to a person qualified to receive the certified mail, such as a registered agent. 

See Small Claims R. 4(c)(2).1

 Regardless of when First Coast alleges that it received the 

 

1

 Available at https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-superiorcourt/Small%20Claims%20Rule%204.%20Service%20of%20Process.pdf