Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco

N.D. California

Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco

DecidedJanuary 13, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-08058

StatusUnknown

This text of Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco (Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALIITASI T ALAPATI, Case No. 20-cv-08058-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR REMAND, REMANDING ACTION AND 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FRANCISCO, et al., FOR AN AWARD OF COSTS AND 11 EXPENSES Defendants. 12 Re: Dkt. No. 8

13 On November 16, 2020, defendant the City and County of San Francisco (“Defendant”) 14 removed this case from San Francisco Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. Defendant was served with the 15 summons and complaint on October 13, 2020. Id. at 1. Before the Court is plaintiff Aliitasi T. 16 Alapati’s Motion for Remand and request for costs and expenses, filed on December 16, 2020. Dkt. 17 No. 8. A hearing for plaintiff’s motion is scheduled for January 22, 2021. Under Civil Local Rule 18 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and 19 VACATES the January 22, 2021 hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 20 plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and remands this action to the San Francisco Superior Court, and 21 DENIES plaintiff’s request for an award of costs and expenses. 22 Plaintiff argues that defendant’s notice of removal was untimely and requests an award of 23 costs and expenses. Dkt. No. 8 at 4-5. Defendant concedes that its notice of removal was untimely 24 and does not oppose remand to state court. Dkt. No. 9. at 1. However, defendant argues that an 25 award of costs and expenses is unwarranted because defendant’s error in filing the removal notice 26 was inadvertent and not in bad faith. Id. 27 The Court agrees that defendant’s notice of removal was untimely. The notice of removal 1 was filed 34 days after defendant was served with the summons and complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1146(b)C) C[N[otice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 fays after 3 || the receipt by the defendant... of a copy of the initial pleading”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 4 || plaintiff's motion for remand and REMANDS this case to San Francisco Superior Court. The Court 5 || DENIES plaintiff's request for an award for costs and expenses. See Moore v. Permanente Med. 6 Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 1992) (“An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to [removal 7 statute]... is within the discretion of the district court’). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: January 13, 2021 Site WU tee 11 □ SUSAN ILLSTON 12 United States District Judge

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ALIITASI T ALAPATI, Case No. 20-cv-08058-SI

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 v. MOTION FOR REMAND, REMANDING ACTION AND 10 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FRANCISCO, et al., FOR AN AWARD OF COSTS AND 11 EXPENSES Defendants. 12 Re: Dkt. No. 8

13 On November 16, 2020, defendant the City and County of San Francisco (“Defendant”) 14 removed this case from San Francisco Superior Court. Dkt. No. 1. Defendant was served with the 15 summons and complaint on October 13, 2020. Id. at 1. Before the Court is plaintiff Aliitasi T. 16 Alapati’s Motion for Remand and request for costs and expenses, filed on December 16, 2020. Dkt. 17 No. 8. A hearing for plaintiff’s motion is scheduled for January 22, 2021. Under Civil Local Rule 18 7-1(b), the Court determines that this matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument and 19 VACATES the January 22, 2021 hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS 20 plaintiff’s Motion for Remand and remands this action to the San Francisco Superior Court, and 21 DENIES plaintiff’s request for an award of costs and expenses. 22 Plaintiff argues that defendant’s notice of removal was untimely and requests an award of 23 costs and expenses. Dkt. No. 8 at 4-5. Defendant concedes that its notice of removal was untimely 24 and does not oppose remand to state court. Dkt. No. 9. at 1. However, defendant argues that an 25 award of costs and expenses is unwarranted because defendant’s error in filing the removal notice 26 was inadvertent and not in bad faith. Id. 27 The Court agrees that defendant’s notice of removal was untimely. The notice of removal 1 was filed 34 days after defendant was served with the summons and complaint. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1146(b)C) C[N[otice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 fays after 3 || the receipt by the defendant... of a copy of the initial pleading”). Accordingly, the Court GRANTS 4 || plaintiff's motion for remand and REMANDS this case to San Francisco Superior Court. The Court 5 || DENIES plaintiff's request for an award for costs and expenses. See Moore v. Permanente Med. 6 Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 448 (9th Cir. 1992) (“An award of attorney’s fees pursuant to [removal 7 statute]... is within the discretion of the district court’). 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: January 13, 2021 Site WU tee 11 □ SUSAN ILLSTON 12 United States District Judge

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alapati-v-city-and-county-of-san-francisco-cand-2021.