O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7

8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California

10

11 CRISTINA ZAVALZA, Case № 2:23-cv-08198-ODW (SKx)

12 Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

13 v.

REMAND [10]

14 WALMART INC. et al.,

15 Defendants.

16 17 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 18 Before the Court is Plaintiff Cristina Zavalza’s Motion to Remand. (Mot., ECF 19 No. 10.) Finding Defendant Walmart Inc.’s removal untimely, the Court GRANTS 20 the Motion and remands the case.1 21 On June 21, 2022, Zavalza initiated this action against Walmart in Los Angeles 22 County Superior Court, asserting negligence and premises liability based on injuries 23 she allegedly sustained on Walmart’s premises. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”) Ex. 1 24 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1-1.) On June 26, 2023, Plaintiff served Walmart with the 25 Summons, Complaint, and an initial Statement of Damages. (Decl. Allan L. Dollison 26 ISO Mot. (“Dollison Decl.”) ¶ 14, Ex. C, ECF Nos. 10-2, 10-5.) In the Complaint, 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 Zavalza indicates she seeks more than $25,000, but does not otherwise state a 2 damages figure. (See generally Compl.) In the Statement of Damages, Zavalza 3 indicates that she seeks $5,000,000 in general damages. (Dollison Decl. Ex. D 4 (“Statement of Damages”), ECF No. 10-6.) 5 On August 4, 2023, Zavalza’s counsel sent an email to Walmart concerning 6 Zavalza’s continuing medical treatment and a recommendation she had received for 7 surgery. (Dollison Decl. Ex. B (“Surgery Email”), ECF No. 10-4.) On September 13, 8 2023, Zavalza sent Walmart a settlement demand letter detailing her specific injuries 9 and treatment, and reflecting a total of $135,542.44 in past and future medical 10 expenses. (NOR Ex. 2 (“Demand Letter”), ECF No. 1-2.) On September 27, 2023, in 11 response to Walmart’s discovery requests, Zavalza amended her Statement of 12 Damages to add $135,542.44 in special damages to the $5,000,000 in general 13 damages. (Decl. Theodore C. Peters ISO Opp’n (“Peters Decl.”) ¶ 10 Ex. A 14 (“Amended Statement of Damages”), ECF No. 11-1.) 15 On September 29, 2023, Walmart removed the case to federal court on the basis 16 of alleged diversity subject matter jurisdiction. (See NOR 3–5, ECF No. 1.) Zavalza 17 now moves to remand. (See Mot.) 18 II. LEGAL STANDARD 19 A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal district court 20 if the district court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A 21 federal district court has original diversity jurisdiction over civil actions where the 22 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and there is complete diversity between the 23 parties. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 24 Two thirty-day periods govern a defendant’s time to remove a case. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1446(b). “[T]he first thirty-day requirement is triggered by defendant’s receipt of an 26 ‘initial pleading’ that reveals a basis for removal.” Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 27 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)). “If no ground for 28 removal is evident” “through examination of the four corners” of that pleading, the 1 case is not removable at that time. Id. The second thirty-day period is triggered by 2 defendant’s receipt of “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper” that 3 reveals a basis for removal. Id. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)). “[T]he [thirty-day] 4 statutory time limit for removal petitions . . . is not jurisdictional,” but it “is mandatory 5 and a timely objection to a late petition will defeat removal.” Smith v. Mylan Inc., 6 761 F.3d 1042, 1045 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 7 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1980) (second alteration in original; internal citations omitted). 8 III. DISCUSSION 9 The parties disagree on which “other paper” triggered Walmart’s time to remove 10 in this case. (See Mot. 4 (arguing the June 26, 2023 Statement of Damages triggered 11 the removal period); Opp’n 3 (arguing the September 13, 2023 Demand Letter 12 triggered the removal period).) 13 A Statement of Damages is generally considered an “other paper” to trigger the 14 second thirty-day period for removal. See Brown v. Target Corp., No. 2:16-cv-07384- 15 JFW (ASx), 2016 WL 6781100, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2016) (granting motion to 16 remand where defendant removed the case more than thirty days after receiving 17 plaintiff’s Statement of Damages, from which defendant “could easily ascertain that 18 the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000”); Mix v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 2:00-cv- 19 00835-R (CTx), 2000 WL 1449880, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 19, 2000) (denying motion 20 to remand because defendant “removed this case within 30 days of receiving the 21 Statement of Damages” which was “the first writing establishing that plaintiff was 22 seeking damages in excess of $75,000”). 23 On June 26, 2023, Zavalza served Walmart with her Statement of Damages 24 listing $5,000,000 in general damages. (Statement of Damages.) Thus, on June 26, 25 2023, Walmart received the first writing establishing that plaintiff sought general 26 damages in excess of $75,000, triggering the thirty-day period to remove. Walmart 27 did not remove the case until September 29, 2023, more than thirty days later. 28 Therefore, Walmart’s removal was untimely and the action must be remanded. 1 Walmart argues that Zavalza’s June 26, 2023 Statement of Damages did not trigger the “other paper” time period to remove because it “reflected no objectively 3 | verifiable information or evidence” of medical expenses. (Opp’n 3, ECF No. 11.) But 4|| Walmart offers no authority requiring a plaintiff to provide evidence of expenses 5 || before a Statement of Damages will trigger the time period to remove. (See generally 6 || id.) In fact, Walmart cites no authority, at all, concerning restrictions on when a 7 || “Statement of Damages” will qualify as an “other paper” for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 8 | § 1446(b). (See generally id.) Instead, Walmart merely recites the procedural 9 || chronology of the case. The Court does not find Walmart’s Opposition persuasive. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the reasons above, the Court finds Walmart’s removal untimely and 12 | accordingly GRANTS Zavalza’s Motion to Remand. (ECF No. 10.) This action is 13 | hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles Superior Court, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012, Case No. 22STCV20212. All dates and deadlines are 15 | VACATED. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 “, 19 December 15, 2023 “Sy 20 hed Mie 1 OTIS D. GHT, II UNITED aTATEGHoraIcn JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28