Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 13, 2021

Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco

Judge
Susan Illston
Docket
3:20-cv-08058
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco, Judge Illston remanded the case because removal was late but denied costs and expenses.

Who this affects

Aliitasi T. Alapati’s action was returned to San Francisco Superior Court, and the City and County of San Francisco was not ordered to pay the requested costs and expenses.

What happened

Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco involved the plaintiff’s request to return the action from federal court to San Francisco Superior Court.

The City and County of San Francisco removed the case 34 days after receiving the summons and complaint. It agreed that removal was late and did not oppose sending the case back, but argued that costs and expenses should not be awarded because the mistake was inadvertent and not in bad faith.

Judge Susan Illston granted the motion for remand and returned the action to San Francisco Superior Court. She denied the request for costs and expenses and canceled the scheduled hearing.

The detailed version

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

Case
Alapati v. City and County of San Francisco · No. 3:20-cv-08058
Judge
Susan Illston
Date
Jan. 13, 2021

Background

The City and County of San Francisco removed the action from San Francisco Superior Court on November 16, 2020. The defendant had been served with the summons and complaint on October 13, 2020. Aliitasi T. Alapati moved to remand, meaning to return the case to state court, and requested costs and expenses.

Analysis

The court stated that the removal notice was filed 34 days after service. The removal statute cited by the court requires a notice of removal to be filed within 30 days after the defendant receives the initial pleading. The City and County conceded that its notice was untimely and did not oppose remand. It argued, however, that an award of costs and expenses was unwarranted because the filing error was inadvertent and not made in bad faith. The court noted that an award of fees under the removal statute is discretionary.

Ruling

The court granted Alapati’s motion for remand and remanded the action to San Francisco Superior Court. It denied Alapati’s request for an award of costs and expenses. The court also resolved the matter without oral argument and vacated the scheduled January 22, 2021 hearing. The order addressed removal and costs; it did not decide the underlying claims.

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.