Superior Kitchen Cabinets Inc. v. Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc.

Background

Superior Kitchen Cabinets Inc. sued Lanz Cabinet Shop, Inc. in California state court. Superior alleged that Lanz failed to pay for cabinet-installation work and materials and committed other business torts. The original complaint concerned one construction project and sought $75,357.60. After Superior amended the complaint, it added claims and allegations concerning 15 construction projects and sought more than $500,000.

Lanz removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction, which generally requires that the parties be citizens of different states and that more than $75,000 be in dispute. Superior moved to remand the case to state court or to dismiss it for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Lanz moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Federal jurisdiction

The court concluded that diversity jurisdiction existed. Superior was a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. Lanz was an Oregon corporation, and the evidence showed that its principal place of business was in Oregon. The parties therefore had different state citizenship, and the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.

Timeliness of removal

Federal law generally requires a defendant to remove a case within 30 days after receiving the complaint. A later 30-day period can apply when the initial pleading does not make the case removable but a later filing does.

The court found that the original complaint was already removable. When Lanz was served on September 2, 2025, Lanz knew its own Oregon citizenship, Superior’s California citizenship, and that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. Lanz therefore had to remove the case within 30 days. Instead, it litigated in state court, including through discovery and setting the case for trial, and did not remove the case until June 26, 2026.

The court rejected Lanz’s argument that the amended complaint restarted the removal period because it expanded the case. The court stated that the Ninth Circuit had not recognized the proposed “revival exception” and that the removal statute allows later removal when the original case was not removable—not merely when an amendment changes the case’s scope or value.

Fees and costs

Superior requested $7,205 in fees and costs under the removal statute and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. The court ruled that Lanz’s removal was improper but that Lanz had an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal because other federal appellate courts had recognized the revival theory. The court therefore denied both requests for fees and costs.

Disposition

The court denied Superior’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, granted Superior’s motion to remand, and denied Lanz’s motion to dismiss without prejudice. The opinion’s signature identifies the judge only partially, so this summary refers to the decision-maker as the court.