Roda Joann Rivera v. QuikTrip Corporation, et al.

D. Arizona

Roda Joann Rivera v. QuikTrip Corporation, et al.

DecidedDecember 11, 2025

Docket2:25-cv-04564

StatusUnknown

This text of Roda Joann Rivera v. QuikTrip Corporation, et al. (Roda Joann Rivera v. QuikTrip Corporation, et al.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Arizona primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Roda Joann Rivera v. QuikTrip Corporation, et al., (D. Ariz. 2025).

Pincite

Opinion

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

9 Roda Joann Rivera, No. CV-25-04564-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 QuikTrip Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 A defendant wishing to remove a case from state court must file a notice of removal 16 “‘within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a 17 copy of the [complaint].’” Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 18 347 (1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)). Defendant QuikTrip Corporation admits it was 19 served on November 5, 2025. (Doc. 1 at 2.) That date of service required the notice of 20 removal be filed no later than December 5, 2025. QuikTrip did not file its notice of removal 21 until December 8, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Therefore, it appears the notice of removal was not 22 timely. If that is accurate, and if plaintiff were to file a motion to remand, the court would 23 have no choice but to remand. See Friedenberg v. Lane Cnty., 68 F.4th 1113, 1121 (9th 24 Cir. 2023) (“a timely objection to a late petition will defeat removal”) (simplified). 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED if plaintiff wishes to seek remand, she must do so within 30 days || of the filing of the notice of removal. 4 Dated this 10th day of December, 2025. 5

CU do MK Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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

9 Roda Joann Rivera, No. CV-25-04564-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiff, ORDER

11 v.

12 QuikTrip Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 A defendant wishing to remove a case from state court must file a notice of removal 16 “‘within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a 17 copy of the [complaint].’” Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 18 347 (1999) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)). Defendant QuikTrip Corporation admits it was 19 served on November 5, 2025. (Doc. 1 at 2.) That date of service required the notice of 20 removal be filed no later than December 5, 2025. QuikTrip did not file its notice of removal 21 until December 8, 2025. (Doc. 1.) Therefore, it appears the notice of removal was not 22 timely. If that is accurate, and if plaintiff were to file a motion to remand, the court would 23 have no choice but to remand. See Friedenberg v. Lane Cnty., 68 F.4th 1113, 1121 (9th 24 Cir. 2023) (“a timely objection to a late petition will defeat removal”) (simplified). 25 / 26 / 27 / 28 / 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED if plaintiff wishes to seek remand, she must do so within 30 days || of the filing of the notice of removal. 4 Dated this 10th day of December, 2025. 5

CU do MK Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

_2-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Roda Joann Rivera v. QuikTrip Corporation, et al., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roda-joann-rivera-v-quiktrip-corporation-et-al-azd-2025.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack