Bonal v. Costco Wholesale Corporation
- Yvonne Rogers
- 4:21-cv-04273
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Bonal v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, Judge Rogers granted remand because Costco removed too late, denied fees and costs, and returned the case to state court.
Dolores Bonal and Costco Wholesale Corp.; the case was returned from federal court to state court.
What happened
In Bonal v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, the court considered Dolores Bonal’s request to send the case back to state court. Costco had removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction.
Bonal argued that Costco missed the deadline for removal because she served a statement of damages estimating her damages at $264,762.23 on November 10, 2020. Costco argued that the statement did not sufficiently show that the amount in dispute exceeded $75,000 and that removability was not established until later discovery responses.
The court ruled that Costco could determine the case was removable when it received the statement of damages, making the June 4, 2021 removal untimely. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the motion to remand, denied Bonal’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and remanded the case to state court.
The detailed version
- Bonal v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · No. 4:21-cv-04273
- Yvonne Rogers
- Aug. 9, 2021
Background
Dolores Bonal filed the case in San Mateo County Superior Court on April 21, 2020. Costco Wholesale Corp. removed it to federal court on June 4, 2021, relying on diversity jurisdiction. Bonal moved to remand, arguing that Costco’s removal was untimely, and also requested attorneys’ fees and costs resulting from the removal.
Removal deadlines
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a defendant generally has 30 days to remove a case after receiving the initial pleading if the case is removable at that point. If the initial pleading does not show that the case is removable, a second 30-day period begins when the defendant receives an amended pleading, motion, order, or other paper from which removability can first be determined. A diversity case generally also cannot be removed more than one year after it begins unless the plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.
Parties’ arguments
Bonal served a statement of damages on November 10, 2020, estimating her damages at $264,762.23. On December 2, 2020, Costco’s counsel wrote that the claimed amount appeared to qualify the case for removal. Costco nevertheless did not remove the case until June 4, 2021. Bonal later stated in a March 2, 2021 letter that she presently valued her damages above $75,000.
Costco argued that the statement of damages was insufficient because it listed $9,871 in medical expenses, $4,891.23 in lost earnings, and $250,000 in general damages. It contended that it could not establish the amount in controversy by the required standard until Bonal served verified amended discovery responses on May 6, 2021, stating that her damages exceeded $75,000.
Ruling
The court concluded that Costco could ascertain the case’s removability when it received Bonal’s statement of damages on November 10, 2020. The court stated that defendants may not delay removal until the amount in controversy has been further substantiated and that Bonal was not required to affirmatively confirm that her damages exceeded the jurisdictional amount. The court found removal untimely under § 1446(b)(3). It did not decide whether Bonal acted in bad faith for purposes of the one-year limitation.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the motion to remand, denied Bonal’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and remanded the case to state court. The clerk was directed to remand the case and close the file.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.