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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?