Monique Parker v. Albertson’s LLC

Opinion

3 MONIQUE PARKER, Case No.: 2:26-cv-00739-APG-DJA

4 Plaintiff Order Granting Motion to Remand

5 v. [ECF No. 7]

7 Defendant

8 Defendant Albertson’s LLC removed this case from state court based on diversity 9 jurisdiction. ECF No. 1. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a defendant must file the notice of 10 removal within 30 days after the defendant received “a copy of the initial pleading setting forth 11 the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based.” If “the case stated by the 12 initial pleading is not removable, a notice of removal may be filed within 30 days after receipt by 13 the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or 14 other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become 15 removable.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3). 16 Albertson’s was served on December 29, 2025. ECF Nos. 1 at 2; 1-4 at 2. But 17 Albertson’s did not remove the case until more than 30 days later, on March 12, 2026. ECF No. 18 1. Albertson’s asserted it timely removed within 30 days of receiving the plaintiff’s request for 19 exemption from arbitration, which, according to Albertson’s, was the first paper by which it 20 could ascertain the case was removable based on the amount in controversy. ECF No. 1 at 4. 21 Plaintiff Monique Parker moves to remand, arguing that Albertson’s did not timely 22 remove. Parker asserts that the complaint alleged $15,725.78 in past medical special damages, 23 future medical special damages of $47, 452, and general damages of at least $15,000, so 1 Albertson’s should have known from the outset that the case was removable. Parker argues that 2 the complaint and the request for exemption from arbitration contain almost the same dollar 3 amounts, so Albertson’s either knew from the start that the case was removable, or the amount in 4 controversy requirement still is not met. Either way, Parker asserts remand is appropriate. 5 Albertson’s responds that although the complaint listed specific damages numbers, the

6 prayer for relief sought general damages in excess of $15,000 and special damages in excess of 7 $15,000, “leaving a question as to whether the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.” ECF 8 No. 8. Albertson’s asserts that it was not until Parker filed the request for exemption from 9 arbitration that it could first ascertain she was seeking $64,704.78 in special damages along with 10 the need for future treatment. 11 Albertson’s removal was untimely. The complaint alleged $15,725.78 in past special 12 damages and $47,542 in estimated future care. ECF No. 1-3 at 4. It also alleged unspecified loss 13 of earning capacity, lost wages, and mental anguish, and that these “damages are ongoing.” Id. 14 Albertson’s could have first ascertained the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000 from these

15 allegations where the past and future medical special damages amounted to $63,267.78 coupled 16 with allegations of past and future mental distress, loss of earning capacity, lost wages, and a 17 request for general and special damages each in excess of $15,000. 18 Albertson’s relies on the complaint’s prayer for relief that stated that Parker sought 19 general damages in excess of $15,000 and special damages in excess of $15,000 to assert that the 20 amount Parker was requesting was vague. Id. at 6. But the cases Albertson’s relies on do not 21 support its theory that the vague allegations in the prayer for relief somehow obscured the 22 specific damages allegations. In both cases Albertson’s cites, the court noted that a complaint’s 23 prayer for relief that asserts damages in excess of $15,000 each for general and special damages 1 supports an amount in controversy that exceeds only $30,000, such that it was not clear the case 2 was removable on the face of the complaint. But in both cases, the court also stated that the 3 complaints in those cases did “not provide specific, factual allegations showing how the case in 4 controversy exceeds” the jurisdictional amount. Nader v. Walmart Inc., No. 2:23-CV-01535- 5 GMN-EJY, 2024 WL 2831433, at *2 (D. Nev. Mar. 1, 2024); Burris v. Albertson’s LLC, No.

6 2:24-CV-01651-CDS-MDC, 2025 WL 2506140, at *3 (D. Nev. Sept. 2, 2025) (“While the 7 prayer for relief supports an amount in controversy exceeding $30,000, Burris does not plead 8 specific, factual allegations showing how the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.”). Here, 9 Parker’s complaint contains specific factual allegations from which Albertson’s could ascertain 10 that the jurisdictional amount was satisfied. 11 Albertson’s contends it first ascertained the amount in controversy from the request for 12 exemption from arbitration, but that document contains nearly identical numbers as the 13 complaint. ECF No. 1-6 at (increasing the estimated cost of future treatment by $1,500). And in 14 its opposition to Parker’s motion to remand, Albertson’s states that although the request for

15 exemption from arbitration “was silent as to claimed general damages, . . . it is reasonable to 16 believe that Plaintiff will seek general damages sufficient to reach the $75,000 jurisdictional 17 threshold even if there are no additional future medical specials.” ECF No. 8 at 5. It is unclear 18 why Albertson’s could not make that same evaluation when looking at the face of the complaint 19 that did mention general damages in excess of $15,000. 20 In sum, the case was removable from the face of the complaint, so Albertson’s removal 21 more than 30 days later was untimely. Consequently, I grant Parker’s motion to remand. 22 23 1 I THEREFORE ORDER that plaintiff Monique Parker’s motion to remand (ECF No. 7) GRANTED. This case is remanded to the court from which it was removed for all further proceedings. The clerk of court is instructed to close this case. 4 DATED this 7th day of April, 2026. 5 (LA 7 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23