Lindquist v. Target Corporation
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-08029
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lindquist v. Target Corporation, Judge Gilliam remanded the action because Target removed it more than one year after filing without proving bad faith.
Clare Lindquist and Target Corporation; the entire action was returned to the Superior Court of California for the County of Marin.
What happened
Clare Lindquist sued Target Corporation and Does 1–10 in California state court, alleging general negligence and premises liability. Target later removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction after receiving Lindquist’s $360,000 settlement demand.
Lindquist asked the federal court to send the case back to state court because Target removed it more than one year after the state case began. Target argued that Lindquist had deliberately delayed revealing that she sought more than $75,000 to prevent removal.
The court found no evidence of bad faith and remanded the entire action to the Superior Court of California for Marin County. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. also ordered the parties to bear their own costs and closed the federal case.
The detailed version
- Lindquist v. Target Corporation · No. 4:19-cv-08029
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 18, 2020
Background
Clare Lindquist filed a state-court complaint against Target Corporation and Does 1–10 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Marin on November 8, 2018. The complaint alleged general negligence and premises liability. Lindquist completed service on November 14, 2018.
On December 27, 2018, Target served a request for a statement of damages under California Civil Code section 425.11. Lindquist objected to that request on January 9, 2019. Target stated that Lindquist first notified it on November 21, 2019, through a settlement demand seeking $360,000. Target then removed the action to federal court on December 9, 2019, relying on diversity jurisdiction.
Motion to Remand
Lindquist moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court. She argued that Target’s removal was untimely because federal law generally bars removal based on diversity jurisdiction more than one year after the state action begins.
The court noted that the state action began when Lindquist filed her complaint on November 8, 2018. Target did not file its removal notice until more than thirteen months later. The one-year limit has an exception when the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal, but the defendant bears the burden of proving that exception.
Target argued that Lindquist deliberately withheld the amount in controversy until after the one-year period. The court rejected that argument because the record did not support it. The discovery materials showed that Lindquist was continuing to see doctors for her injuries and responding to discovery about the extent of her damages as she learned more. The court therefore found that Target’s bad-faith allegation lacked support.
The court stated that it did not need to reach Lindquist’s separate argument that Target also failed to remove the case within thirty days after receiving proper notice that the case was removable.
Disposition
The court remanded the entire action to the Superior Court of California for the County of Marin. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs, the clerk was instructed to close the federal file, and the order terminated docket number 8.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.