Cazarez v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Filing 21

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen granting 14 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand. (emclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/13/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ADOLFO CAZAREZ,

8

Plaintiff,

10

UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, INC.,
Defendant.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND

v.

9

Case No. 24-cv-00376-EMC

Docket No. 14

12
13
The instant case is related to Benter v. United Parcel Service, Inc., No. C-24-0375 EMC

14
15

(N.D. Cal.). Like the plaintiff in Benter, Mr. Cazarez has made a single claim of failure to

16

reimburse business expenses, specifically, cell phone expenses ($50/month). Like the plaintiff in

17

Benter, Mr. Cazarez initiated proceedings against UPS before the California Department of

18

Industrial Relations, Labor Commissioner’s Office (“DIR”) and lost, after which he filed an

19

appeal with the Contra Costa Superior Court. UPS removed the case from state court to this

20

Court, as it did in Benter. Mr. Cazarez now moves for a remand. The Court finds this matter

21

suitable for disposition without oral argument and thus VACATES the hearing on the motion.
In Benter, the Court granted the plaintiff’s motion to remand. The Court does so here as

22
23

well. Although UPS timely removed the case at bar from state to federal court,1 it has failed to

24

prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy has been met for

25
26
27
28

1

Mr. Cazarez served UPS with notice of his state court suit on December 18, 2023. UPS had 33
days to remove: (1) the 30 days afforded by the removal statute, see 28 U.S.C. § 1446, plus (2) 3
more days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) because service was effectuated by mail. In
other words, UPS had until January 20, 2024, to remove. January 20, however, was a Saturday.
The first Court day thereafter was January 22, 2024, which is when UPS filed its notice of
removal.

1

purposes of diversity jurisdiction. The analysis in Benter is equally applicable here.

2

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Mr. Cazarez’s motion to remand. However, as in

3

Benter, it denies the request for attorneys’ fees because UPS’s removal was not unreasonable. See

4

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

5

Accordingly, the Clerk of the Court is instructed to remand this case back to Contra Costa

6

Superior Court and close the file in this case.

7

This order disposes of Docket No. 14.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Dated: May 13, 2024

12
13
14

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2