CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-00892-ODW (KKx) Date June 28, 2023 Title Abigail Altamirano et al. v. The Geo Group, Inc. et al.

Present: The Honorable Otis D. Wright, II, United States District Judge Sheila English Not reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not present Not present Proceedings: In Chambers On April 6, 2023, Plaintiffs Abigail Altamirano, Mark Perea, Sandy Ramirez, and Christopher Ruiz served their state court complaint for wrongful termination on their employer, Defendant The Geo Group, Inc. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 1.) On May 17, 2023, Defendant removed the case to federal court. (See generally id.) Plaintiffs now move to remand based on Defendant’s untimely removal. (Mot. Remand 1, ECF No. 12.) The motion is fully briefed. (See Opp’n, ECF No. 14; Reply, ECF No. 15.) Having carefully considered the papers filed in connection with the motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Accordingly, the Court VACATES the July 10, 2023, hearing.

A defendant has thirty days from the date of service to remove an action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). The thirty-day period to file a Notice of Removal is statutory and cannot be extended by stipulation. Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[T]he time limit is mandatory and a timely objection to a late petition will defeat removal . . . .”); Lewis v. City of Fresno, 627 F. Supp. 2d 1179, 1182 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“[T]he statutory time limit for removal petitions is mandatory” and “cannot be extended by continuance or stipulation.”).

Defendant concedes it received the complaint on April 6, 2023, and that it was ascertainable from the pleading that removal was possible. (NOR ¶¶ 5, 15, 18, 22–23.) Thus, under the statute, Defendant had until May 8, 2023, to file for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Defendant’s removal on May 17, 2023, was therefore untimely.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-00892-ODW (KKx) Date June 28, 2023 Title Abigail Altamirano et al. v. The Geo Group, Inc. et al.

Defendant concedes as much, but argues nonetheless that Plaintiffs’ counsel extended Defendant’s time to respond to the Complaint, which Defendant understood meant Plaintiffs would not object to Defendant’s removal within that same timeframe. (Opp’n 3 (explaining that Defendant’s counsel “read [the extension] as a global extension, including the time to file the removal”); see NOR ¶ 11.) However, the meet and confer emails clearly establish that Plaintiffs granted Defendant an extension of time only to respond to the Complaint; the extension did not encompass removal. (See Decl. Aren Derbarseghian ¶ 3, Ex. 2, ECF No. 12-1 (“You asked for a two week extension to file a responsive pleading. Your request for an extension is granted. You will now have until May 22 to respond.”).) To the extent Defendant claims reliance on an unwritten “global extension including the time to file the removal,” (Opp’n 3), Defendant’s “unilateral reliance . . . [i]s unreasonable,” Transp. Indem. Co. v. Fin. Tr. Co., 339 F. Supp. 405, 408–09 (C.D. Cal. 1972) (“[A] stipulation merely to extend the time to move, answer or otherwise respond does not have the effect of authorizing or consenting to . . . a later removal which was untimely filed.”).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand. (ECF No. 12.) This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Case No. CIVSB2227310, 247 W. Third St., San Bernardino CA 92415. All dates and deadlines are VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

: 00 Initials of Preparer SE