Daniel M. Leeyer v. Circle K Stores Incorporated

Opinion

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

9 Daniel M. Leeyer, No. CV-25-08061-PCT-DJH

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 Circle K Stores Incorporated,

13 Defendant. 14 15 Defendant Circle K. Stores Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. 87) 16 on June 3, 2026. In his Response, pro se Plaintiff Daniel M. Leeyer (“Plaintiff”) stated 17 that he does not oppose remand; however, he requests that the Court award him his costs 18 and expenses incurred in this litigation and moot the pending motion for summary 19 judgment and Daubert motion. (Doc. 90 at 2–3). Defendant, in its Reply, argues that 20 Plaintiff is only entitled to costs incurred as a result of the improper removal. (Doc. 91 21 at 2). 22 Plaintiff originally filed this case in Mohave County Superior Court on February 19, 23 2025, due to a slip and fall that occurred at a Circle K gas station. (See Doc. 1-1 at 3–6). 24 Defendant then removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), 25 claiming that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 and complete diversity 26 existed. (Doc. 1 at ¶7). Specifically, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff is considered a 27 citizen of Washington, and Circle K is a citizen of Texas as it is incorporated and maintains 28 its principal place of business in Texas. (Id. at ¶¶ 9–10). However, Defendant’s counsel 1 “recently learned that Defendant’s principal place of business is in fact Tempe, Arizona, 2 and was Tempe, Arizona when the case was removed.” (Doc. 83 at 1). 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and removal statutes are strictly 4 construed. District courts do have original jurisdiction over all civil actions where the 5 matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of 6 different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, “[a] civil action otherwise removable 7 solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a)…may not be removed if any 8 of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State 9 in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). “It is thus clear that the presence 10 of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal.” Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. 11 for N. Dist. of Ca., 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Defendant is a citizen of 12 Arizona, the removal of this case to the United States District Court for the District of 13 Arizona was improper. Thus, this case will be remanded to Mohave County Superior 14 Court. 15 In doing so, the Court will not deny the pending dispositive motions. Instead, the 16 Court will remand these motions to the Mohave County Superior Court for resolution them. 17 The Court will, however, retain limited jurisdiction to resolve any dispute regarding the 18 costs and expenses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of this improper removal. Indeed, there 19 is no question that Defendant improperly removed this case, and the misrepresentation of 20 one’s own domicile is a troubling error. Section 1447(c) accounts for just costs and 21 expenses “incurred as a result of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In his Response, Plaintiff 22 notes that he has sustained “approximately $14,000 in expert-retention costs together with 23 filing, copying, travel, lodging, and other litigation expenses.” (Doc. 90 at 3). This blanket 24 amount is not recoverable under § 1447(c). Plaintiff would have incurred expert fees 25 regardless of whether this case was litigated in state or federal court, and presumably also 26 incurred travel and lodging expenses, as both courts are located in Arizona. Baddie v. 27 Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[O]ther fees and costs incurred in 28 federal court after a removal may be related only tenuously to the removal, as when they 1 || replace similar fees and costs that would have been incurred in state court if the litigation || had proceeded there. Such fees and costs cannot be considered ‘incurred as a result of the removal.’ ”). So, while the Court will allow Plaintiff (after a good faith meet and confer 4|| with Defendant) to recoup his expenses associated with the improper removal, Plaintiff 5 || must limit his request to those actually attributable to the removal. 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 87) is GRANTED. 8 || The Clerk shall take all necessary steps to remand this case, including all currently pending motions (Docs. 83, 84), to the Mohave County Superior Court. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must meet and confer in good faith 11 |) with Defendant regarding any costs and expenses associated with the improper removal 12 || within fourteen (14) days of this Order. If no agreement is reached regarding those 13 || alleged amounts, Plaintiff shall have until July 31, 2026, to file a motion for costs and expenses associated with the improper removal. The Court will retain limited jurisdiction 15 || to resolve any motion for costs and expenses that is filed by Plaintiff. If Plaintiff does not 16]| file a motion for costs and expenses by July 31, 2026, the Clerk of Court is instructed to || terminate this matter without further order from the Court. 18 Dated this 6th day of July, 2026. 19 20 oC. . oe _ 21 norable’ Diang4. Huntetewa United States District Fudge 23 24 25 26 27 28

_3-