Naseri v. City and County of San Francisco
- Thomas Hixson
- 3:24-cv-05413
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Naseri v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Hixson denied remand because the federal-question case was removed on time.
The ruling affected Zahir Naseri and the City and County of San Francisco by keeping this removed action in federal court rather than remanding it to state court.
What happened
Zahir Naseri sued the City and County of San Francisco in state court, alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the California Constitution. The City removed the case to federal court, and Naseri asked the federal court to send it back, arguing that removal was late.
The court found that it had federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint included federal civil-rights claims. Naseri and the City agreed that the City was served on July 19, 2024. The thirtieth day was August 18, a Sunday, so the deadline extended to Monday, August 19. The City filed its removal notice that day.
The court ruled that removal was proper and denied Naseri’s motion to remand. Judge Hixson also stated that any state-court entry of default had no effect on federal jurisdiction because the state court’s jurisdiction was suspended when the City removed the case.
The detailed version
- Naseri v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:24-cv-05413
- Thomas Hixson
- Sept. 18, 2024
Background
Zahir Naseri filed the action against the City and County of San Francisco in the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco on July 15, 2024. The complaint alleged violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Article 1, Section 13 of the California Constitution. The City was properly served on July 19, 2024.
The City removed the action to federal court on August 19, 2024, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446. Naseri moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court. He argued that the City’s notice of removal was untimely. He did not argue that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction.
Court’s analysis
The court held that it had federal-question jurisdiction because the complaint alleged violations of federal civil-rights law. A defendant may remove a state-court action that could originally have been filed in federal court. The removal statute generally requires the notice to be filed within 30 days after service of the initial pleading. When the final day falls on a weekend or legal holiday, the deadline extends to the next non-weekend, non-holiday day.
Because the City was served on July 19, the thirtieth day was August
- August 18, 2024, was a Sunday, so the filing deadline extended to Monday, August
- The City filed its notice of removal on August
- The court therefore concluded that the removal was timely and proper.
The court also addressed Naseri’s assertion that he requested entry of default in state court on August 19. The City stated that it had moved to set aside the state-court entry of default. The court explained that the state court’s jurisdiction was suspended when the City filed the proper notice of removal, so the state-court entry of default had no bearing on federal jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court denied Naseri’s motion to remand. It vacated the scheduled October 3, 2024 hearing and decided the matter without oral argument.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.