Free Order on Motion to Remand - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-04998-BZ

Document 21

Filed 12/17/2007

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff has moved to remand, asserting that defendant 18 failed to comply with 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) by not filing a 19 timely notice of removal. 20 2007, the day it deposed plaintiff's husband who testified 21 about her damages. 22 question could have been determined from the interrogatory 23 answers defendant received on August 23, 2007. 24 claims it could not discern the amount in question until 25 September 27, 2007, when they deposed the husband. 26 A case can only be removed within 30 days of the receipt 27 of a paper "from which it may first be ascertained that the 28 1 Defendant Plaintiff claims that the amount in Defendant removed on September 27, ) ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) v. ) ) TARGET CORPORATION, et al., ) ) ) Defendant(s). ) ) JONI BAKER, aka F. JOAN BAKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

No.

C 07-4998 BZ

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

Case 3:07-cv-04998-BZ

Document 21

Filed 12/17/2007

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

case is one which is or has become removable." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). "[N]otice of removability under § 1446(b) is

determined through an examination of the four corners of the applicable pleadings, not through subjective knowledge or a duty to make further inquiry." Harara v. Landamerica Financial Group Inc., 2007 WL 2938172 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2007); quoting Harris v. Bankers Life and Casualty Co., 425 F.3d 689, 694 (9th Cir. 2005). I have reviewed plaintiff's interrogatory answers and find that if plaintiff had wanted to put defendant on notice that her claim met the $75,000 jurisdictional amount, she could have done so by answering question 8.7, which asks for her total income loss. Instead, plaintiff gave her monthly

loss, answered other interrogatories from which she claims defendant could calculate the duration of her income loss and now faults defendant for not performing sufficient calculations to determine what plaintiff did not when she failed to answer 8.7. Based only upon the four corners of the interrogatory answers, I find it is not ascertainable that the case was removable. Therefore, defendant filed a timely notice of

removal and plaintiff's motion to remand is DENIED. Dated: December 17, 2007 Bernard Zimmerman United States Magistrate Judge
G:\BZALL\-BZCASES\Baker v. Target\ORDER.DENYING.MOT.TO.REMAND.FINAL.wpd

27 28 2