CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

February 25, 2021 Case No. 2:20-cv-11451-SVW-AGR Date

Nuri Aguilar v. AMF Bowling Centers Inc., et al Title

Present: The Honorable STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul M. Cruz N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS ORDER GRANTING [11] MOTION TO REMAND.

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to Los Angeles Superior Court. Dkt. 11.

Plaintiff served Defendant with the complaint on September 2, 2020. Alabise Decl., Ex. C. Defendant removed the case to federal court on December 18, 2020. Dkt. 1. Defendant’s removal was therefore improper because it did not occur within 30 days after Defendant received a paper from which Defendant could ascertain that the case was removable. 28 U.S.C. § 1446.

Defendant argues that Plaintiff is estopped from objecting to removal. Opp. at 4–6. Specifically—and without citing any Ninth Circuit authority, see id.—Defendant argues that Plaintiff is estopped because “[a]t no time did [Defendant’s insurer] receive any indication that Plaintiff’s settlement demand was withdrawn, revoked or otherwise subject to a particular timeframe,” id. at 4.

Defendant’s argument is without merit. A party is only estopped from objecting to removal if it engages in “affirmative conduct or unequivocal assent of a sort which would render it offensive to fundamental principles of fairness to remand.” Transp. Indem. Co. v. Fin. Tr. Co., 339 F. Supp. 405, 407 (C.D. Cal. 1972).

Here, Defendant identifies no such conduct or assent. Rather, Defendant essentially argues that, because Defendant assumed Plaintiff would settle the case, Plaintiff is estopped from objecting to removal. See Opp. at 4–6. However, unless the basis of that assumption is “affirmative conduct or

:

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

February 25, 2021 Case No. 2:20-cv-11451-SVW-AGR Date

Nuri Aguilar v. AMF Bowling Centers Inc., et al Title

unequivocal assent of a sort which would render it offensive to fundamental principles of fairness to remand”—e.g., Plaintiff’s express acceptance of a settlement offer—Defendants’ assumption alone is insufficient to establish estoppel.

Additionally, the Court declines to award attorney’s fees to Plaintiff. Although the Court rejects Defendant’s estoppel argument, the Court finds that the argument is not so objectively unreasonable as to warrant an attorney’s fees award. See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005).

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The case is remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: