Webb v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

• Court: District Court, D. Arizona
• Decided: June 13, 2025
• Docket: 2:25-cv-01644
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

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

9 Sandra Webb, et al., No. CV-25-01644-PHX-KML

10 Plaintiffs, ORDER

11 v.

12 Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.,

13 Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Sandra Webb was shopping at Costco when “she slipped on some 16 inconspicuous liquid, fell, and was injured.” (Doc. 1-1 at 7.) Webb and her husband filed 17 this suit against Costco in Maricopa County Superior Court. (Doc. 1-1 at 6.) Costco was 18 served on April 24, 2025, and removed the suit to federal court on May 14, 2025. (Doc. 1 19 at 2.) The day after removal, the Clerk of Court issued a Notice of Deficiency stating Costco 20 had committed two procedural errors in its filings. First, Costco’s papers were signed by 21 one attorney but filed using the login credentials of a different attorney. Second, Costco 22 allegedly had not submitted “the generated automated Civil Cover Sheet.” (Doc. 5.) The 23 notice directed Costco to file a cover sheet but did not direct any corrective action regarding 24 the use of the wrong login credentials. (Doc. 5.) 25 On May 28, 2025, Webb filed a motion to remand. (Doc. 7.) That motion does not 26 argue the removal was untimely. Nor does it claim complete diversity is lacking or less 27 than $75,000 is in controversy. Instead, the motion argues Costco violated Local Rules 3.6 28 and 5.5(b) such that remand is required. Local Rule 3.6 requires a removing party file a 1 Civil Cover Sheet when removing a case from state court. Webb cites the Notice of 2 Deficiency as establishing Costco violated that rule. As for Local Rule 5.5(b), it provides 3 “[t]he Court will accept for filing documents submitted, signed or verified by electronic 4 means consistent with these rules and the [Electronic Case Filing Administrative Policies 5 and Procedures Manual for the District of Arizona].” Webb claims the Notice of Deficiency 6 establishes Costco also violated Rule 5.5(b) because the removal papers were filed using 7 the wrong login credentials. Based on these alleged violations of the Local Rules, Webb 8 argues the court “cannot accept [Costco’s] Notice of Removal as filed.” Because the “30- 9 day deadline for [Costco] to file a valid Notice of Removal lapsed on May 27, 2025,” Webb 10 believes the court has no choice but to remand. (Doc. 7 at 4.) Webb’s motion, if not actually 11 frivolous, is a hair’s breadth from it. 12 The portion of the Notice of Deficiency regarding the civil cover sheet was issued 13 in error. That fact is reflected on the docket. The parties were informed of the error on May 14 30, 2025, but Webb did not withdraw her argument regarding the civil cover sheet. The 15 court cannot grant remand based on a procedural error that does not exist. 16 The second procedural error regarding use of the wrong login credentials exists but 17 Webb does not cite any authority indicating this type of error would be a valid basis for 18 remand. The Ninth Circuit previously concluded a more significant procedural error— 19 failing “to attach [the] original complaint to [the] notice of removal”—was a “de minimis 20 procedural defect” that could be cured “even after expiration of the thirty-day removal 21 period.” Kuxhausen v. BMW Fin. Servs. NA LLC, 707 F.3d 1136, 1142 (9th Cir. 2013) 22 (simplified); see also Walton v. Bayer Corp., 643 F.3d 994, 999 (7th Cir. 2011) (“a totally 23 inconsequential defect in removal papers [does not] deprive the district court of jurisdiction 24 over a case removed to it”). Costco’s error in using the wrong login credentials is less 25 serious than failing to attach all the required papers. Costco’s error falls well short of 26 meriting remand.1

27 1 There is no need for Costco to take any corrective action regarding this error. When a party fails to file a document that should have been part of the record from the beginning, 28 requiring correction makes sense. But requiring Costco refile the exact same papers using the correct login credentials would serve no purpose. See Wisconsin Dep’t of Revenue v. 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Remand (Doc. 7) is DENIED. 3 Dated this 13th day of June, 2025. 4 5 y/ @£L f 6 UW aM. MAA Honorable Krissa M. Lanham 7 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 William Wrigley, Jr., Co., 505 U.S. 214, 231 (1992) (faulting party for ignoring “the venerable maxim de minimis non curat lex (‘the law cares not for trifles’)’). _3-