Airoldi v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
- Edward Chen
- 3:24-cv-00429
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Airoldi v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Judge Chen remanded the case and denied attorneys’ fees after finding removal untimely and inadequately supported.
The ruling returns Mike Airoldi’s case against United Parcel Service, Inc. to Contra Costa Superior Court. It also denies the request for attorneys’ fees.
What happened
In Airoldi v. United Parcel Service, Inc., Mike Airoldi brought one claim seeking reimbursement for business expenses, specifically $50 per month for cell phone expenses. After proceedings before the California Labor Commissioner’s Office and an appeal to state court, United Parcel Service, Inc. removed the case to federal court, and Airoldi sought remand.
The court found that the removal was untimely because UPS received notice of the state-court case on December 20, 2023, but did not remove it until January 24, 2024. The court also said that, even if removal had been timely, UPS had not shown by a greater-than-50-percent likelihood that the amount in controversy met the requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
Judge Edward Chen granted Airoldi’s motion to remand, directed the clerk to return the case to Contra Costa Superior Court, and ordered the file closed. The court denied Airoldi’s request for attorneys’ fees because it found that UPS’s removal arguments were not unreasonable.
The detailed version
- Airoldi v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-00429
- Edward Chen
- May 13, 2024
Background
Mike Airoldi asserted a single claim for failure to reimburse business expenses, specifically cell phone expenses of $50 per month. He first pursued the matter before the California Department of Industrial Relations, Labor Commissioner’s Office, where he lost. He then appealed to Contra Costa Superior Court.
United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS) removed the state-court case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Airoldi moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the hearing.
Reasons for Remand
The court held that UPS did not timely remove the case. Airoldi served UPS with notice of the state-court suit on December 20, 2023. The court calculated that UPS had 33 days to remove: 30 days under the federal removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446, plus three days under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d) because service was by mail. The deadline was January 22, 2024, but UPS removed the case on January 24, 2024.
The court rejected UPS’s argument that a California service-by-mail provision, California Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(a), supplied the applicable time extension. It concluded that Rule 6, rather than § 1013(a), governs the calculation of time for the federal removal statute.
The court gave an alternative reason for remand. Even assuming that removal was timely, UPS had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence—that is, that it was more likely than not—that the amount in controversy satisfied the requirement for diversity jurisdiction. The court stated that its analysis in the related Benter proceeding applied equally here.
Disposition
The court GRANTED Airoldi’s motion to remand. It instructed the clerk to remand the case to Contra Costa Superior Court and close the federal case file.
The court DENIED the request for attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Although the removal was unsuccessful, the court found that UPS had not acted unreasonably in arguing that the amount in controversy requirement was met or that removal was timely under the California provision rather than Rule 6. The order disposed of Docket No. 14.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.