Elizabeth Ozi v. Petsmart, LLC, et al.

D. Nevada

Elizabeth Ozi v. Petsmart, LLC, et al.

DecidedOctober 17, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-01448

StatusUnknown

This text of Elizabeth Ozi v. Petsmart, LLC, et al. (Elizabeth Ozi v. Petsmart, LLC, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Elizabeth Ozi v. Petsmart, LLC, et al., (D. Nev. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ELIZABETH OZI, 5 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-001448-ART-DJA 6 v. ORDER 7 PETSMART, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 1) 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff Elizabeth Ozi brought an action in state court against Defendant 13 Petsmart LCC and Doe and Roe defendants, alleging that they negligently covered 14 a raised metal bar with a floormat, causing her to trip and fall. (ECF No. 1-2.) 15 Petsmart filed a petition to remove in this Court (ECF No. 1). The Court now 16 orders Petsmart to refile its removal petition together with all required state court 17 documents, or file a statement explaining that its petition already includes all 18 documents required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 19 A defendant seeking to remove a case from state to federal court may file “a 20 notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, 22 together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such 23 defendant or defendants in such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (emphasis added). 24 Failure to include all the required state court documents is a curable procedural 25 defect, even after expiration of the thirty-day removal period. Kuxhausen v. BMW 26 Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2013). 27 Petsmart filed its notice of removal together with Ms. Ozi’s complaint, and her 28 request for exemption from arbitration. It is not clear whether these documents 1 || constitute “all process, pleadings, and orders” served upon Petsmart in the state 2 || court action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 3 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant either file an amended petition for 4 || removal that fully complies with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), or make 5 || a statement that its first petition already includes all process, pleadings, and 6 || orders served upon it in state court. The deadline to comply with this order shall 7 || be October 31, 2025. 8 DATED THIS 17th day of October, 2025. 9 10 Awe plocect Re 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 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

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 ELIZABETH OZI, 5 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-001448-ART-DJA 6 v. ORDER 7 PETSMART, LLC, et al., (ECF No. 1) 8 Defendants. 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff Elizabeth Ozi brought an action in state court against Defendant 13 Petsmart LCC and Doe and Roe defendants, alleging that they negligently covered 14 a raised metal bar with a floormat, causing her to trip and fall. (ECF No. 1-2.) 15 Petsmart filed a petition to remove in this Court (ECF No. 1). The Court now 16 orders Petsmart to refile its removal petition together with all required state court 17 documents, or file a statement explaining that its petition already includes all 18 documents required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 19 A defendant seeking to remove a case from state to federal court may file “a 20 notice of removal signed pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil 21 Procedure and containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal, 22 together with a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders served upon such 23 defendant or defendants in such action.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) (emphasis added). 24 Failure to include all the required state court documents is a curable procedural 25 defect, even after expiration of the thirty-day removal period. Kuxhausen v. BMW 26 Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2013). 27 Petsmart filed its notice of removal together with Ms. Ozi’s complaint, and her 28 request for exemption from arbitration. It is not clear whether these documents 1 || constitute “all process, pleadings, and orders” served upon Petsmart in the state 2 || court action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). 3 It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant either file an amended petition for 4 || removal that fully complies with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), or make 5 || a statement that its first petition already includes all process, pleadings, and 6 || orders served upon it in state court. The deadline to comply with this order shall 7 || be October 31, 2025. 8 DATED THIS 17th day of October, 2025. 9 10 Awe plocect Re 11 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Elizabeth Ozi v. Petsmart, LLC, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/elizabeth-ozi-v-petsmart-llc-et-al-nvd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack