D. Roe v. Doe Corporation 1

facts. If indeed removal was proper for the reasons Defendant itself claimed, the basis for an amount in controversy greater than $75,000 was obvious from the face of the Complaint.

1 Defendant argues that the Court should excuse its late filing in the proper district because it timely filed in a sister district, citing cases for the proposition that this Court has the discretion to excuse the “trivial error.” Opposition at 5–6 [Dkt. No. 21]. The cases cited by Defendant do not concern the mandatory thirty-day removal window; instead, they deal with excusing noncompliance with local rules and, in the case of Cocquyt v. Norfolk S. Corp., No. 3:22-CV- 1022-RLM-MGG, 2023 WL 2446339 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 8, 2023), whether a district court had the discretion to transfer an action to the proper division within its district. Id. Defendant has identified no authority allowing a court to grant an untimely removal.

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 5:23-cv-02133-HDV (SHKx) Date: February 6, 2024 Title D. Roe v. Doe Corp. 1, et al.

In summary, because Defendant was properly on notice from the face of the Complaint that the case was removable, the 30-day clock began to…