Source: https://casetext.com/case/whitten-v-frontier-commcns-corp-2
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:13:10+00:00

Document:
Whitten v. Frontier Commc&apos;ns Corp.
PHYLLIS WHITTEN, Plaintiff, v. FRONTIER COMMUNICATIONS CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; CITIZENS TELECOM SERVICES CO.; KEVIN MAILLOUX; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants.
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.
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.
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. Warner-Lambert 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.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.