Hayes v. VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC.
- Susan Illston
- 3:25-cv-02502
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 5
In Hayes v. VCOM SOLUTIONS, Judge Illston denied Hayes’s motion to remand, ruling that federal law permits the defendant’s snap removal.
Justin Hayes and VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC.; the case remains in federal court rather than returning to Contra Costa County Superior Court, and the underlying claims were not decided.
What happened
In Hayes v. VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC., Justin Hayes sued his former employer in state court, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, related employment violations, and invasion of privacy. VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC. removed the case to federal court before Hayes could serve the complaint.
The court considered whether this early removal, known as “snap removal,” was allowed under the federal law governing diversity-based removals. Although the court recognized that the timing suggested possible gamesmanship and raised concerns about the purpose of the rule, it followed the Northern District of California’s general approach and read the statute’s wording as permitting snap removal, including when there is one in-state defendant.
Judge Susan Illston denied Hayes’s motion to remand. The opinion did not decide whether Hayes’s employment claims were valid; it decided only that the case would remain in federal court.
The detailed version
- Hayes v. VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC. · No. 3:25-cv-02502
- Susan Illston
- May 2, 2025
Background
Justin Hayes filed state-law claims against his former employer, VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC., in Contra Costa County Superior Court. The claims alleged racial discrimination, failure to prevent discrimination and retaliation, adverse employment action violating public policy, and invasion of privacy.
When Hayes filed the complaint on March 7, 2025, the state court had not provided or published certain documents needed for service, including the Notice of Case Assignment. Hayes’s counsel contacted the court clerk about the missing documents. The clerk later posted the documents, but before Hayes served the complaint, VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC. removed the case to federal court on March 12, 2025, based on diversity jurisdiction. Hayes then moved to return the case to state court.
Legal issue
The issue was whether the defendant’s early removal was barred by the “forum defendant rule.” That rule generally prevents removal of a diversity case when a properly joined and served defendant is a citizen of the state where the case was filed. “Snap removal” is the practice of removing a case before the defendant has been served, thereby avoiding the rule’s “properly joined and served” language.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that the defendant generally bears the burden of showing that removal is proper. It noted that courts in the Northern District of California generally permit snap removals based on the plain wording of the federal statute. The court also noted that three federal appellate courts had held that snap removals are permissible, while the Eleventh Circuit had indicated that they may sometimes be improper.
The court found Hayes’s purpose-based arguments thoughtful and well reasoned. It stated that this case presented a particularly severe example because Hayes was an out-of-state plaintiff, VCOM SOLUTIONS, INC. was an in-state defendant, the defendant removed quickly, and the state court had not yet provided documents needed for service. The circumstances therefore suggested some element of gamesmanship, despite the defendant’s contrary position.
Even so, the court held that a fair reading of the statute permits snap removals. It emphasized the importance of consistent decisions within the Northern District of California and declined to adopt an earlier district-court decision that treated single-defendant cases differently. The court concluded that the single-defendant circumstance did not change the result.
Disposition
The court denied Hayes’s motion to remand. The case therefore remained in federal court. The ruling addressed removal and remand, not the merits of Hayes’s underlying employment and privacy claims. The court also stated that it hoped the Ninth Circuit would eventually decide whether snap removals are proper.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.