Rosa Medellin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 16

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: On 11/2/2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause ("OSC") why this action should not be remanded to state court fo r untimely removal 11 . Specifically, Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appears to have missed the 30-day window for removal under 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b). Because Wal-Mart fails to sufficiently justify the substantial delay in removal, and given th e strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number BC571989. All scheduled dates and deadlines are VACATED. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 )Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 16-7924 DMG (AFMx)

Title Rosa Medellin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al.
Present: The Honorable

JS-6 / REMAND

November 23, 2016
Page

1 of 1

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

KANE TIEN
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT
On November 2, 2016, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why this
action should not be remanded to state court for untimely removal. [Doc. # 11.] Specifically,
Defendant Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. appears to have missed the 30-day window for removal under
28 U.S.C. section 1446(b). OSC at 1 (Wal-Mart served on May 5, 2016).
In response, Wal-Mart argues that it did not “become evident” that it could remove the
case until Plaintiff’s counsel failed to respond by October 7, 2016 to its request to have Plaintiff
stipulate to the amount in controversy being less than $75,000. Def. Resp. at 3-4. This
contention is belied by Wal-Mart’s notice of removal, which states that “it is ‘facially apparent’
from the complaint that the amount in controversy ‘more likely than not’ exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum.” Removal Notice ¶¶ 7-8, 11. Wal-Mart in its OSC response glosses
over such prior assertions.
Because Wal-Mart fails to sufficiently justify the substantial delay in removal, and given
the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, the Court REMANDS this action to the Los
Angeles County Superior Court. All scheduled dates and deadlines are VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT