Jordan Robert Iwaszewski and Natalie Iwaszewski v. Palace Entertainment Holdings, LLC, Herschend Family Entertainment, and Does 1 through 50

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JORDAN ROBERT IWASZEWSKI, an Case No. 2:26-cv-01656-SPG-SSC 11 individual; and NATALIE IWASZEWSKI, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ 12 an individual, MOTION TO REMAND [ECF NO. 12] 13 Plaintiffs,

14 v.

15 PALACE ENTERTAINMENT 16 HOLDINGS, LLC, a Delaware limited 17 liability company; HERSCHEND FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT, a Georgia 18 corporation; and DOES 1 through 50, 19 inclusive, 20 Defendants. 21 22 Before the Court is a Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 12 (“Motion”)), filed by 23 Plaintiffs Jordan Robert Iwaszewski and Natalie Iwaszewski (“Plaintiffs”). The Court has 24 read and considered the Motion and concluded that it is suitable for decision without oral 25 argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. Having considered the parties’ 26 submissions, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 27 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 A. Factual Background 3 On August 9, 2023, Plaintiff Jordan Robert Iwaszewski visited the Raging Waters 4 amusement park in San Dimas, California, and rode on the park’s Speed Slide attraction. 5 See (ECF No. 1-1 (“Complaint”) ¶¶ 2, 7, 12). According to the Complaint, a sudden surge 6 of water on the Speed Slide caused Mr. Iwaszewski to “travel at an unsafe speed, barrel 7 around a sharp curve, become airborne, and strike his head on the slide.” (Id. ¶ 12). As a 8 result, Mr. Iwaszewski allegedly suffered “severe injuries, including a laceration requiring 9 over a dozen staples, head and neck trauma, a small subcentimeter area of flair 10 hyperintensity in the left frontal cortex, ongoing pain, and severe depression.” (Id. ¶ 15). 11 Plaintiffs allege that Palace Entertainment Holdings, LLC and Herschend Family 12 Entertainment are responsible for Mr. Iwaszewski’s injuries. See (id. ¶¶ 13–15). 13 According to the Complaint, Palace Entertainment Holdings (“Palace Entertainment”) is 14 the parent company or managing entity of Raging Waters, and Herschend Family 15 Enterprises (“Herschend”) has assumed Palace Entertainment’s liabilities. See (id. ¶¶ 2– 16 4). Plaintiffs allege Palace Entertainment and Herschend should have known the Speed 17 Slide was defective; failed to exercise reasonable care in inspecting, maintaining, or 18 repairing the Speed Slide; and failed to warn Mr. Iwaszewski about the Speed Slide’s 19 hazardous condition. See (id. ¶¶ 13–14). 20 The Complaint requests $4.525 million in damages. See (id. ¶¶ 20, 32, 39, 48). At 21 the time of filing, Mr. Iwaszewski allegedly incurred $28,114.61 in medical expenses from 22 the accident, $100,000 in lost earnings to date, and $18,877.70 in expenses for his trip to 23 California, which was allegedly disrupted by the accident at Raging Waters. See (id. ¶¶ 16, 24 17, 19). Plaintiffs also estimated that Mr. Iwaszewski will incur $178,200 in future medical 25 expenses and $1.25 million in lost earnings as a result of his injuries. See (id. ¶¶ 16–17). 26 The Complaint requests $2 million in damages for Mr. Iwaszewski’s “emotional distress, 27 pain, suffering, and inconvenience.” (Id. ¶ 18). Natalie Iwaszewski, Mr. Iwaszewski’s 28 wife, also requests $1 million in damages for loss of consortium. See (id. ¶ 52). 1 B. Procedural History 2 Plaintiffs filed this action in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 16, 2025. 3 See (ECF No. 1 (“NOR”) ¶ 1). On July 14, 2025, Festival Fun Parks, LLC (“Defendant”) 4 accepted service on behalf of Palace Entertainment and Herschend, claiming that Plaintiffs 5 erroneously sued these entities in its place. See (ECF No. 1-2). The parties exchanged 6 discovery and, on January 16, 2026, Mr. Iwaszewski served responses to Defendant’s first 7 set of interrogatories. See (ECF No. 1-3). In his interrogatory response, Mr. Iwaszewski 8 disclosed that he had incurred more than $40,000 in medical expenses and $125,000 in lost 9 earnings. See (id. at 6). Mr. Iwaszewski also estimated that he was likely to incur future 10 medical expenses of more than $178,000 and lost earnings of $1.25 million. See (id.). On 11 the same day, Ms. Iwaszewski served a response to Defendant’s first set of interrogatories, 12 claiming $1 million in damages for loss of consortium. See (ECF No. 1-4 at 5–6). 13 Defendant removed the case to federal court on February 17, 2026. Plaintiffs filed 14 their Motion to Remand on March 18, 2026. On April 8, 2026, Defendant timely filed a 15 brief in opposition. See (ECF No. 16 (“Opposition”)). On April 22, 2026, Plaintiffs filed 16 an untimely brief in reply. See (ECF No. 17 (“Reply”)). Under the Local Rules, parties 17 must file any papers in reply “not later than fourteen (14) days before the date designated 18 for the hearing of the motion.” C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-10. Because Plaintiffs filed their Reply 19 seven days after the applicable deadline without leave to do so, the Court declines to 20 consider the arguments presented therein. See C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-12 (“The Court may 21 decline to consider any memorandum or other document not filed within the deadline set 22 by order or local rule.”). 23 II. LEGAL STANDARD 24 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction 25 only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian 26 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action 27 filed in state court to federal court if the federal court had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action arises under 1 federal law, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where each plaintiff’s citizenship is diverse from each 2 defendant’s citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of 3 interest and costs, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 4 Federal law sets forth two separate deadlines, which, if triggered, require a defendant 5 to initiate removal within thirty days: (1) following service of an initial pleading that 6 affirmatively reveals the basis for removal; or (2) if “the case stated by the initial pleading 7 is not removable,” following receipt of “an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper 8 from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become 9 removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), (3). The first thirty-day deadline “only applies if the 10 case stated by the initial pleading is removable on its face,” as determined “through 11 examination of the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective 12 knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry.” Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 13 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). The second deadline, meanwhile, is only triggered where “an 14 amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper . . . [makes] a ground for removal 15 unequivocally clear and certain.” Dietrich v. Boeing Co., 14 F.4th 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 16 2021). A defendant may remove a case “outside the two thirty-day periods on the basis of 17 its own information, provided that it has not run afoul of either of the thirty-day deadlines.” 18 Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d 1121, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013). 19 There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal 20 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 21 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The removal statute is 22 strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of 23 remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). 24 The removing party bears the burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction. 25 Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 26 III. DISCUSSION 27 The Complaint alleges Plaintiffs’ citizenship and requests more than $75,000 in 28 damages. See (Compl. ¶¶ 1, 16–20, 32, 39, 48, 52). Therefore, Plaintiffs claim that it was 1 clear from the face of the Complaint that this case could be removed based on the Court’s 2 diversity jurisdiction, and Defendant had 30 days from receipt of the Complaint to remove 3 the case under § 1446(b)(1). See (Motion at 4–5). Defendant does not contest that it was 4 clear from the Complaint that the parties were completely diverse but argues that it was not 5 clear whether Plaintiffs’ claims satisfied the amount in controversy threshold for removal. 6 See generally (Opp.). Defendant therefore claims that Plaintiffs’ interrogatory responses 7 were the first documents that provided a clear basis for removal, triggering the deadline for 8 removal under § 1446(b)(3). See (id.). 9 “[W]hen a complaint filed in state court alleges on its face an amount in controversy 10 sufficient to meet the federal jurisdictional threshold, such requirement is presumptively 11 satisfied unless it appears to a ‘legal certainty’ that the plaintiff cannot actually recover that 12 amount.” Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). The 13 Complaint alleges more than $4 million in damages. See (Compl. ¶¶ 20, 32, 39, 48). 14 Therefore, the damages alleged in the Complaint presumptively satisfy the amount in 15 controversy requirement. See Guglielmino, 506 F.3d at 699. Defendant nevertheless 16 argues that the Complaint did not trigger the removal deadline under § 1446(b)(1) because 17 California law does not allow Plaintiffs to request damages in personal injury lawsuits. 18 See (Opp. at 6–8); see also Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 425.10(b) (“where an action is brought 19 to recover actual or punitive damages for personal injury or wrongful death, the amount 20 demanded shall not be stated”). 21 However, Defendant does not explain why Plaintiffs’ alleged noncompliance with 22 California procedural law posed a bar to removal.1 Whether a complaint is subject to 23 1 Defendant claims that a defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the 24 evidence, facts which support removal “where a state law does not permit a specific 25 demand in the complaint.” (Opp. at 7). In support, Defendant cites to Sanchez v. Monumental Life Insurance Co., 102 F.3d 398 (9th Cir. 1996). See (Opp. at 7). However, 26 Sanchez addressed what a removing defendant must prove “in cases where a plaintiff’s 27 state court complaint does not specify a particular amount of damages.” Sanchez, 102 F.3d 28 at 404. The court did not address situations where the complaint does specify a particular amount of damages, even though doing so is not permitted under state law. 1 removal “is a question of the construction of the federal statute on removal,” Chicago, R.I. 2 ||& P.R. Co. v. Stude, 346 U.S. 574, 580 (1954), and “[t]he Supreme Court has cautioned 3 || against interpreting the federal removal statute with reference to state law,” Anderson v. 4 || State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 917 F.3d 1126, 1128 (9th Cir. 2019). Because it was clear 5 || from the face of the Complaint that this action falls within the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, 6 ||and Defendant accepted service of the Complaint on July 14, 2025, see (ECF No. 1-2), 7 || Defendant was required to remove the case to federal court within 30 days of receipt. See 8 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Defendant failed to do so and, therefore, removal was untimely.” 9 CONCLUSION 10 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS the Motion. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 13 DATED: May 5, 2026 14 SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Ilo In the Motion, Plaintiffs request fees and costs. See (Motion at 5). Under 28 U.S.C. 23 ||§ 1447(c), fees and costs may be awarded “where the removing party lacked an objectively 74 ||reasonable basis for seeking removal.” See Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). However, even if Defendant lacked an objectively reasonable basis for 25 removal, Plaintiffs have not identified fees and costs resulting from removal. Therefore, 26 || the Court declines to award fees and costs. See, e.g., Santi v. Batache, No. 2:21-CV-00603- SB-PD, 2021 WL 425982, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2021) (declining to award fees and costs because plaintiff did not provide evidence beyond a declaration that the requested rate was 28 || appropriate).