Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled May 13, 2024

Batieste v. United Parcel Service, Inc.

Judge
Edward Chen
Docket
3:24-cv-00473
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedureEmployment
In one sentence

In Batieste v. United Parcel Service, Judge Chen granted remand because UPS removed late and did not prove the required amount in controversy.

Who this affects

Dante Batieste and United Parcel Service, Inc.; the case was returned to Contra Costa Superior Court, and the federal case was closed.

What happened

Batieste v. United Parcel Service, Inc. involved a claim by Dante Batieste that UPS failed to reimburse $50 per month in cell-phone business expenses. After proceedings before California’s Labor Commissioner’s Office and an appeal to Contra Costa Superior Court, UPS moved the case to federal court.

Batieste asked the federal court to send the case back to state court. The court found that UPS removed the case after the deadline: it had until January 23, 2024, but removed on January 25. The court also said that, even if removal had been timely, UPS had not shown that the amount in dispute was enough for federal diversity jurisdiction.

Judge Edward Chen granted Batieste’s motion to remand, denied the request for attorneys’ fees, and instructed the clerk to return the case to Contra Costa Superior Court and close the federal case.

The detailed version

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

Case
Batieste v. United Parcel Service, Inc. · No. 3:24-cv-00473
Judge
Edward Chen
Date
May 13, 2024

Background

Dante Batieste asserted one claim against United Parcel Service, Inc. for failure to reimburse business expenses, specifically $50 per month in cell-phone expenses. 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. UPS removed the case from state court to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Batieste moved to remand, meaning he asked the federal court to return the case to state court.

Reasons for Remand

The court held that UPS’s removal was untimely. Batieste served UPS with notice of the state-court suit on December 21, 2023. The court calculated a 33-day removal period: 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 therefore January 23, 2024, but UPS did not remove the case until January 25, 2024.

The court also held that UPS had not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was satisfied. The court rejected UPS’s argument that a California service-by-mail provision, rather than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6, supplied the applicable timing rule. It noted that federal law governs the procedure for calculating the removal deadline, although it cited another federal district court decision suggesting a different interpretation.

Ruling

Judge Edward Chen granted Batieste’s motion to remand. The court denied Batieste’s request for attorneys’ fees because it found that UPS’s removal was not unreasonable. In particular, the court said UPS was not unreasonable in arguing that the amount in controversy could be sufficient or that its removal was timely under the California provision. The clerk was instructed to remand the case to Contra Costa Superior Court and close the federal case. The order disposed of Docket No. 14.

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.