1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Katlyn Johnson, No. 2:23-cev-01817-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Reliant Property Management, Inc., 1S Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Kaitlyn Johnson sued defendant Reliant Property Management, Inc. in state 18 | court, alleging disability discrimination in violation of the California Fair Employment and 19 | Housing Act and alleging work environment harassment under California state law. Reliant 20 | removed the case to federal court. Johnson moves to remand the case to state court. This court 21 | grants Johnson’s motion to remand. 22 | I. BACKGROUND 23 Reliant filed a notice of removal based on diversity jurisdiction after learning Johnson no 24 | longer resides in California and did not reside in California at the time the complaint was filed. 25 | See Notice of Removal, ECF. No. 1. Johnson’s complaint alleges she lived in California “at all 26 | relevant times.” See Compl. § 1, Ex. C, ECF No. 8-3. More than a year after the suit was filed, 27 | Reliant propounded discovery, which included a notice to depose Johnson. See Mot. Remand 28 | Mem. at 5, ECF No. 7-1. Johnson’s counsel, Arash Sadat, called Johnson to discuss the

1 deposition and learned then for the first time that Johnson had moved to Arizona. See Sadat Decl. 2 ¶ 7, ECF No. 7-4; see also Mills Decl. ¶ 9, ECF No. 7-3. Sadat contacted Reliant’s counsel the 3 same day to inform them Johnson had relocated to Arizona. See Sadat Decl. ¶ 8. Johnson now 4 moves to remand. Mot. Remand, ECF No. 7. The motion is fully briefed. See Opp’n, ECF No. 5 11; Reply, ECF No. 12. 6 II. LEGAL STANDARD 7 A defendant may remove a matter to federal court if the district court would have original 8 jurisdiction.

(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

(1987). When, 9 as here, the asserted source of a district court’s original jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, the 10 parties must be completely diverse, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See 11

. A case may not be removed based on diversity jurisdiction “more than 1 year 12 after commencement of the action, unless the district court finds that the plaintiff has acted in bad 13 faith in order to prevent a defendant from removing the action.”

(c)(1). “If the 14 notice of removal was untimely, a plaintiff may move to remand the case back to state court.” 15 Carvalho LLC v. Equifax Info. Servs.,

(9th Cir. 2010). 16 The party invoking the court’s removal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing 17 “removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). The Ninth Circuit 18 strictly construes the removal statute against removal jurisdiction.

“Where doubt regarding 19 the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive 20 Specialty Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). 21 III. ANALYSIS 22 It is undisputed Reliant removed this action more than a year after Johnson filed it in state 23 court. The court therefore must determine whether Johnson acted in bad faith to prevent removal. 24 The Ninth Circuit has not set a standard for district courts to follow when evaluating 25 allegations of bad faith in this context, but district courts within the circuit generally have set a 26 high bar for defendants “to demonstrate that a plaintiff acted in bad faith to prevent removal.” 27 Kolova v. Allstate Ins. Co.,

, 1196 (W.D. Wash. 2020) (internal quotation 28 marks and citation omitted). As an example, a plaintiff acts in bad faith by “fail[ing] to disclose 1 the actual amount in controversy to prevent removal.”

(c)(3)(B). Lower courts 2 have found “[s]uspicious timing by itself . . . is not sufficient to demonstrate bad faith.” 3 GeoSierra Env’t, Inc. v. Nautilus Ins. Co., No. 22-00505,

, at *5 (W.D. Wash.

, 2023) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) (collecting cases). “Determining 5 whether a plaintiff has acted in bad faith to prevent removal necessarily involves looking into the 6 plaintiff’s subjective intent, as the text of section 1466(c)(1) strongly suggest[s] intentionality and 7 purpose.” Mapes v. FCA US LLC, No. 21-870,

, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 8 2021) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see Heller v. Am. 9 States Ins. Co., No. 15-9771,

, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2016). 10 Reliant argues Johnson acted in bad faith because (1) Johnson misled Reliant by alleging 11 incorrectly she lived in California, Notice of Removal ¶ 3; (2) the timing of Johnson’s attorney’s 12 notifying Reliant of Johnson’s move—four days after the one-year removal deadline had 13 passed—was suspect,

, and (3) Johnson’s attorneys did not “undertak[e] a reasonable 14 investigation concerning Plaintiff’s citizenship to ensure the Complaint was accurate before 15 filing[,]” Opp’n at 6. Johnson lived in California when she retained counsel to initiate her lawsuit 16 but had moved to Arizona by the time the complaint was filed. See Mot. Remand Mem. at 2; 17 Opp’n at 2. Johnson and her attorneys attest Johnson never informed her attorneys about her 18 move to Arizona until her call with Sadat on August 15, 2023. See Johnson Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Sadat 19 Decl. ¶ 7; Mills Decl. ¶ 9. Reliant provides no evidence showing Johnson or her attorneys 20 “intended” to mislead Reliant. See Mapes,

, at *4 (declining to find bad faith 21 in part because defendant did not provide enough evidence to show plaintiff intended to defeat 22 diversity jurisdiction). Moreover, suspect timing alone is insufficient to support a finding of bad 23 faith. See GeoSierra,

, at *5. Lastly, Reliant points to no authority to support 24 its argument that an attorney’s potentially negligent investigation is relevant to the bad faith 25 inquiry under

(c)(1). Reliant has not met the high bar for demonstrating bad 26 faith. 1 Additionally, the court declines Reliant’s invitation to equitably toll the one-year deadline. 2 Reliant did not serve discovery for over a year and did not investigate Johnson’s citizenship when 3 the suit was first filed in state court. 4 For the reasons stated above, the court grants Johnson’s motion for remand. This 5 action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Solano. 6 This order resolves ECF No. 7. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 DATED: January 5, 2024.