Espinoza v. Target Corporation

Background

Sharon Espinoza sued Target Corporation in state court on October 15, 2024. She alleged negligence and premises liability based on a slip-and-fall injury at a Target store in San Francisco on January 13, 2023. Her original complaint did not state where she lived. An amended complaint filed on March 24, 2025, alleged that she resided in San Francisco, but it used the present tense and did not say where she was domiciled when she filed the lawsuit.

On April 9, 2025, Target served written discovery asking for Espinoza’s address and five-year residence history. On June 17, 2025, she responded that she had lived at her San Francisco address since 1976. Target removed the case to federal court on July 3, 2025.

The Motion to Remand

Espinoza asked the court to send the case back to state court and requested fees. She argued that Target’s removal was untimely because she had sent Target’s insurer a prelitigation demand on June 24, 2024, attaching medical records and bills that included her San Francisco address. She also argued that her amended complaint’s allegation that she resided in San Francisco gave Target notice that the case was removable.

Target argued that it did not have clear notice of removability until Espinoza answered the written discovery. It also argued that it had reason to doubt her residency based on circumstances surrounding her fall, although the court’s ruling focused on the clarity of the documents that triggered the removal deadline.

Court’s Analysis

A defendant may remove a case to federal court when the federal court could have heard it originally. The court explained that diversity jurisdiction generally requires more than $75,000 in dispute and complete diversity of citizenship between the opposing parties. The party removing the case bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.

Federal law provides two thirty-day removal periods. The first begins when the initial pleading clearly shows that the case is removable. The second begins when a later pleading, motion, order, or other paper first provides clear and certain notice that the case has become removable.

The court held that Espinoza’s original complaint did not start the first thirty-day period because it did not identify her residence. The prelitigation demand did not start the second period because it was sent before the lawsuit was filed, and the statute’s reference to “other paper” covers documents received after the initial pleading.

The court also held that the amended complaint did not clearly start the second thirty-day period. Although it said that Espinoza resided in San Francisco, residence alone does not establish citizenship or domicile. For diversity purposes, the relevant domicile is the person’s domicile when the lawsuit was filed. Because the amended complaint did not clearly state that Espinoza was domiciled in San Francisco when she filed the case, it did not provide unequivocally clear notice that removal was proper.

The court treated Target’s written discovery as qualifying “other paper” under the removal statute. Target removed the case within thirty days after learning from Espinoza’s response that she had lived in San Francisco since 1976. The court therefore found the removal timely.

Disposition

Judge Laurel Beeler denied the motion to remand. The order states that this resolved ECF No. 5.