O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 PAZ DE LA HUERTA, Case №: 2:19-CV-02183-ODW (JCx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING

13 v. 14 H ARVEY WEINSTEIN et al., MOTION FOR REMAND [4]

15 Defendants.

16 17 I. INTRODUCTION 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Remand (“Motion”). (ECF 19 No. 4.) For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.1 20 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 21 Plaintiff Paz De La Huerta initiated this action against Defendants Harvey 22 Weinstein, the Weinstein Company, Four Seasons Hotels, LTD, Burton Way Hotels, 23 LTD, and Burton Way Hotels LLC, in the Superior Court of California, County of Los 24 Angeles, in November 2018. (Notice of Removal Ex. A (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) 25 Through her initial Complaint, Plaintiff asserted five state-law causes of action. (See 26 Compl.) By December 2018, Plaintiff had formally served Four Seasons and the 27

28 1 Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the Motion, the Court deemed the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 1 Burton Way Hotels (collectively, “Hotel Defendants”). (See Proof of Service, De La 2 Huerta v. Weinstein, No. 18STCV04723 (Cal. Super. Ct. Dec. 12, 2018) (Four 3 Seasons); Proof of Service, De La Huerta v. Weinstein, No. 18STCV04723 (Cal. 4 Super. Ct. Dec. 17, 2018) (Burton Way); Hotel Defs.’ Suppl. Br. Ex. D (“Superior 5 Court Docket”), ECF No. 19-4.)2 6 On January 10, 2019, Hotel Defendants demurred to Plaintiff’s initial 7 Complaint. (Mot. 3.) In response, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 8 on February 4, 2019, and personally served Hotel Defendants that same day. (Mot. 3; 9 Decl. of Aaron G. Filler ¶ 3, Ex. 2, ECF Nos. 4-1, 4-4.) The next day, Hotel 10 Defendants requested that the Superior Court take the demurrer off calendar “per the 11 filing of plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint.” (Off Calendar Notice, De La Huerta 12 v. Weinstein, No. 18STCV04723 (Cal. Super. Ct. Feb. 5, 2019).) Due to Plaintiff’s 13 technical errors, the Superior Court electronic filing system rejected Plaintiff’s FAC, 14 and Plaintiff re-filed the same document on February 19, 2019. (Mot. 3–4; Opp’n to 15 Mot. (“Opp’n”) 3, ECF No. 14.) Plaintiff sent another copy of the FAC to Hotel 16 Defendants via FedEx overnight service. (Opp’n 4.) 17 Plaintiff’s FAC added a sixth cause of action asserting a claim under 18 U.S.C. 18 § 1591. (Notice of Removal Ex. B (“FAC”) ¶¶ 80–102, ECF No. 1-2.) On March 22, 19 2019, Hotel Defendants removed the action to this Court on the basis of federal 20 question and diversity subject matter jurisdiction. (See Notice of Removal 4.) 21 Plaintiff moves to remand this matter, asserting that Hotel Defendants’ removal was 22 untimely. (See Mot. 4.) Hotel Defendants oppose. (See generally Opp’n.)3 23 24

25 2 The Court takes judicial notice of the docket and filings in the underlying Superior Court action, De La Huerta v. Weinstein, No. 18STCV04723 (Cal. Super. Ct. 2018), as they “can be accurately 26 and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned” and are directly related to the matters at issue. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Black, 482 F.3d 1035, 27 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). 28 3 The Court does not consider Plaintiff’s late-filed reply in support of her motion for remand. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12; (Minute Order, ECF No. 16; Reply, ECF No. 17).

2 1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and have subject-matter 3 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. 4 Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 5 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the 6 federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 7 Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or 8 where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the 9 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Id. §§ 1331, 1332(a). The removal statute is 10 strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 11 1992). A plaintiff objecting to removal may move for remand due to lack of subject 12 matter jurisdiction or other defect, such as the timeliness of removal. See 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1447(c). 14 IV. DISCUSSION 15 Plaintiff moves for remand on the basis that Hotel Defendants’ removal was 16 untimely. (Mot. 4.) 17 “[A] notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by the 18 defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, 19 order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which 20 is or has become removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). The thirty-day removal period 21 begins to run upon receipt of the complaint after formal service has been effected; the 22 “mere receipt” of a complaint without formal service does not trigger the removal 23 clock. Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347–48 (1999); 24 see also Quality Loan Serv. Corp. v. 24702 Pallas Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, 635 25 F.3d 1128, 1132–33 (9th Cir. 2011). Once the defendant is served with the summons, 26 and is thus “brought under a court’s authority,” “the period for removal runs from the 27 defendant’s receipt of the complaint.” Quality Loan, 635 F.3d at 1133; Murphy Bros., 28 526 U.S. at 354, 356.

3 1 Hotel Defendants were served and demurred to Plaintiff’s initial complaint and 2 || were thus formally brought under the court’s authority. They received the FAC via 3 || personal service on February 4, 2019, which they further acknowledged the next day 4]|| in their request that the pending state-court demurrer be taken off calendar “per the 5 | filing of Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.” (Off-Calendar Notice 1.) Thus, Hotel 6 || Defendants were formally under the court’s authority on February 4, 2019, when they 7 || received the amended pleading that informed them the case was removable. As such, 8 | the removal clock began to run on this date. 9 Defendants had thirty days from February 4, 2019, to remove the action to 10 || federal court, or until March 6, 2019. They did not remove until March 22, 2019. 11 || Consequently, Hotel Defendants’ removal was untimely, filed beyond the thirty-day 12 || period. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. 13 Vv. CONCLUSION 14 For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion to 15 || Remand (ECF No. 4) and REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of 16 || California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 18STCV04723, Stanley Mosk 17 || Courthouse, 111 N. Hill Street, Los Angeles California 90014. The Clerk of Court 18 | shall close the case. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 August 9, 2019 23 24 Ged dit .

35 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28