Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Nov. 6, 2025

Kellman v. The Home Depot

Judge
Jon Tigar
Docket
4:25-cv-06974
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Kellman v. Home Depot, Judge Tigar denied Kellman’s motion to remand, ruling Home Depot’s removal was timely because the deadline extended from Saturday to Monday.

Who this affects

Sanford Alan Kellman’s request to remand was denied, and The Home Depot, LLC’s removal was allowed to stand. Home Depot’s request for sanctions was also denied on procedural grounds.

What happened

In Dr. Sanford Alan Kellman v. The Home Depot, LLC, Kellman asked the court to remand the case because he argued Home Depot filed its notice of removal too late.

The parties agreed that the 30-day deadline ended on Saturday, August 16, 2025, and that Home Depot filed its notice on Monday, August 18. The court applied the federal rule that extends a deadline falling on a Saturday to the next non-weekend, non-holiday day. It rejected Kellman’s arguments that the rule did not apply to electronic filing or removal deadlines.

Judge Jon S. Tigar denied Kellman’s motion to remand. The court also denied Home Depot’s request for sanctions because Home Depot made that request only in its opposition brief instead of filing and noticing a separate sanctions motion.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Kellman v. The Home Depot · No. 4:25-cv-06974
Judge
Jon Tigar
Date
Nov. 6, 2025

Background

Plaintiff Sanford Alan Kellman moved to remand based on his contention that Defendant The Home Depot, LLC removed the case after the statutory deadline. The parties agreed that the last day of the 30-day removal period was Saturday, August 16, 2025, and that Home Depot filed its notice of removal on Monday, August 18, 2025.

Court’s analysis

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), a defendant generally must file a notice of removal within 30 days after receiving the complaint. Because the removal statute does not specify how to calculate the deadline, the court applied Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a). That rule extends a period ending on a Saturday until the end of the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday. The court therefore concluded that Home Depot had until Monday, August 18, to file its notice and that the removal was timely.

Kellman argued that Rule 6(a) should not apply because the court’s electronic filing system is available on weekends, removal statutes are strictly interpreted against federal jurisdiction, and a federal procedural rule cannot create jurisdiction. The court stated that Kellman cited no supporting authority and that it was aware of none. It also cited decisions holding that a removal deadline ending on a Saturday extends to the following Monday when that Monday is not a court holiday.

Rulings

The court denied Kellman’s motion to remand. It also denied Home Depot’s request for sanctions because the request was made only in its opposition brief. The court explained that Civil Local Rule 7-8(a) requires a sanctions motion to be separately filed and noticed for hearing.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.