Bastan Falsafi v. House of Imports, Inc.

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: June 25, 2021
• Docket: 8:21-cv-00901
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Jo-0 l 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION ll 12 Case No.: SACV 21-00901-CJC(DFMx) '3 || BASTAN FALSAFI, 14 Is Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S y MOTION TO REMAND CASE TO 16 . ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT [Dkt. 10] || HOUSE OF IMPORTS, INC., ig || AUTONATION INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,

20 Defendants. 21 22 {OS 23 24 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 25 26 Plaintiff Bastan Falsafi brings this action against Defendants House of Imports, 27 ||Inc., Autonation, Inc., and unnamed Does. (Dkt. 1 Ex. A [Complaint].) Plaintiff filed his 28 || initial complaint in Orange County Superior Court on January 15, 2021 and Defendants

1 were served with the Summons and Complaint in February 2021. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of 2 Removal, hereinafter “NOR”] ¶¶ 1‒2.) Defendants removed the case to this Court on 3 May 14, 2021. Plaintiff now moves to remand the case to Orange County Superior 4 Court. (Dkt. 10 [hereinafter “Mot.”].) For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motion to 5 remand is GRANTED.1 6 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 9 Plaintiff moves to remand the case to Orange County Superior Court, arguing that 10 Defendants’ removal was untimely. (See Mot.) Defendants argue that their untimely 11 removal is justified on two grounds: (1) Plaintiff’s dismissal of his state law claims 12 revived the right to remove and (2) the 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) bad faith exception applies. 13 The Court disagrees and finds neither justification applies in this case. (Dkt. 11 14 [Defendants’ Opposition, hereinafter “Opp.”].) 15 16 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 17 when the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 18 § 1441. The removal statute is strictly construed “against removal jurisdiction” and 19 “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 20 the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The strong 21 presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden 22 of establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (quotations omitted). 23 24 As a general matter, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) requires that a notice of removal must be 25 filed within thirty days of receipt of the complaint, or else the served defendants waive 26

27 1 Having read and considered the papers presented by the parties, the Court finds this matter appropriate 1 their right of removal. See Cantrell v Great Republic Ins. Co., 873 F.2d 1249, 1256 2 (9th Cir. 1989). “If a case is removable from the outset, it must be removed within the 3 initial thirty-day period specified by § 1446(b); subsequent events do not make it ‘more 4 removable’ or ‘again removable.’” Samura v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 5 715 F. Supp. 970, 972 (N.D. Cal. 1989). 6 7 Here, Defendants filed their notice of removal over 3 months after being served 8 with the Summons and Complaint, well after the thirty-day period expired. (See NOR.) 9 Defendants first argue that Plaintiff’s voluntary dismissal of his state law claims revived 10 their ability to remove the case. There is a narrow, judicially-created exception which 11 holds that a right to removal may be revived “where the plaintiff files an amended 12 complaint that so changes the nature of [the] action as to constitute ‘substantially a new 13 suit begun that day.’” Id. (quoting Wilson v. Intercollegiate (Big Ten) Conf. Athletic 14 Assoc., 668 F.2d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 1982)). Plaintiff’s amended complaint in this case 15 did not so change the nature of the action as to constitute “a substantially new suit.” Id. 16 Plaintiff’s amended complaint did not add any new claims but dropped his state law 17 claims, leaving only federal claims under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Consumer 18 Financial Protection Act. Because the federal claims existed from the start of the lawsuit, 19 it was “removable from the outset” and Defendants were required to remove it within the 20 initial thirty-day period. See id. 21 22 Defendants also argue that the 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c) bad faith exception applies. 23 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1) permits an extension of when a case may be removed if the Court 24 “finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith in order to prevent a defendant from 25 removing the action.” Defendants fail to show that any of Plaintiffs actions were made in 26 bad faith or were made to prevent Defendants from removing the case. As previously 27 stated, a known basis for removal existed at the outset of this case due to Plaintiff’s 1 || from timely noticing removal. Defendants could have easily removed the case within the 2 || initial thirty-day period and then moved to compel arbitration. They did not. 3 || Accordingly, the bad faith exception does not apply. 4 5 || 1. CONCLUSION 6 7 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED and the s Court REMANDS this case to Orange County Superior Court. 9 10 ll DATED: — June 24, 2021

12 lt (— 7 13 CORMAC J. CARNEY 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28