Chadd v. Trans Bay Cable, LLC

Background

Chris Chadd filed the action in San Francisco County Superior Court on January 16, 2019, and later filed a First Amended Complaint asserting seven state-law claims based on employment-related events. Trans Bay Cable, LLC removed the action to federal court on June 14, 2019, asserting federal-enclave jurisdiction. Chadd moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

Timeliness of Removal

The court rejected Chadd’s argument that Trans Bay Cable missed the deadline for removal. Chadd argued that the defendant had been served on April 9, 2019, when a process server left the summons and complaint with an individual described as apparently in charge at the defendant’s San Francisco office. The defendant’s agent for service testified that he did not receive the summons until May 23, 2019, after Chadd’s counsel sent a letter about a motion for default.

The court found that Chadd’s evidence did not overcome the inference from the defendant’s conduct that it had not received the April 9 service. The court also found that the single attempt to leave the papers with a security guard did not satisfy the diligence required for substituted service under California law. Because the defendant removed the action within 30 days after learning that the action existed through the notice concerning default, the court found that removal was timely.

Federal-Enclave Jurisdiction

Federal-enclave jurisdiction is a form of federal-question jurisdiction over claims arising from events occurring on certain federal lands. The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving federal jurisdiction. The court found that Trans Bay Cable failed to meet that burden.

The evidence showed that most, if not all, of the allegedly wrongful interactions occurred at the defendant’s Pittsburgh, California, office, where Chadd generally worked. The court found that the fact that the employment-termination decision was made at the defendant’s Presidio office was only a tangential connection because the termination occurred at Chadd’s employment location. The plaintiff’s occasional presence at the Presidio office and the fact that his employee complaint was lodged and processed there also did not establish the required connection.

The court concluded that the weight of the evidence showed that the events underlying the claims primarily occurred outside the Presidio office. It therefore held that Trans Bay Cable had not shown that federal-enclave jurisdiction applied, that the federal court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and that removal was improper.

Fees, Costs, and Judicial Notice

The court denied Chadd’s request for fees and costs incurred in litigating the remand motion because it did not find that Trans Bay Cable lacked an objectively reasonable basis for removal. The court also denied Chadd’s request for judicial notice because the documents were either already part of the action or unnecessary to resolve the remand motion.

Disposition

The court granted Chadd’s motion to remand and remanded the action to San Francisco County Superior Court. It denied Chadd’s request for fees and costs and denied his request for judicial notice.