Navarro v. Apartment Management Consultants, LLC

Background

Rosa Navarro brought a proposed class action against Apartment Management Consultants, LLC (AMC), a property manager, concerning allegedly improper withholding of security deposits and imposition of late fees. Navarro originally filed the case in the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego on December 8, 2022.

AMC first removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California under the Class Action Fairness Act, a federal law that can provide jurisdiction over certain class actions. After Navarro moved to remand, the Southern District returned the case to San Diego Superior Court on June 16, 2023.

Navarro filed the operative amended complaint in San Diego Superior Court on June 27, 2023, and served it on AMC that same day. The state court later transferred the case to Alameda Superior Court. AMC filed a second notice of removal on February 13, 2024, this time in the Northern District of California, again asserting jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act.

Removal deadline

A defendant generally must remove a case within 30 days after receiving an initial pleading showing that the case can be removed. If the initial pleading does not make removability clear, the 30-day period can begin when the defendant receives a later pleading, motion, order, or other paper showing that the case has become removable.

AMC argued that its second removal was timely because it occurred within 30 days after AMC received the case number from the Alameda Superior Court. The court rejected that argument. It held that the relevant event was AMC’s receipt of the operative complaint on June 27, 2023, because the case’s removability based on federal subject-matter jurisdiction was ascertainable at that time.

The court therefore concluded that AMC’s removal deadline was July 27, 2023. Because AMC did not remove the case to the Northern District of California until February 13, 2024, the removal was untimely. The court also noted that AMC had previously acknowledged in state-court filings that removal after the transfer to Alameda would be untimely and did not identify changed circumstances that would restart the deadline.

The court did not decide Navarro’s remaining arguments about the amount in controversy because that issue was unnecessary to determine whether the removal was proper.

Other requests and disposition

Navarro’s counsel requested attorneys’ fees in connection with the motion to remand. The court denied that request without prejudice because counsel had not complied with Civil Local Rule 54-5, which requires a meeting and discussion between counsel before filing a fee request.

The court granted Navarro’s motion to remand and remanded the case to the California Superior Court for the County of Alameda. It terminated AMC’s motion to dismiss as moot and directed the Clerk to close the file.