1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 LESLIE VALDES, on behalf of the ESTATE Case No.: 2:22-cv-01336-APG-BNW OF ANTONIO CORONA, 4 Order Remanding Case to State Court Plaintiff 5 [ECF No. 8] v. 6 WAL-MART, INC., d/b/a WALMART, a 7 Foreign Corporation; and DOES 1-25 inclusive; and ROE CORPORATIONS 1-25 8 inclusive,

9 Defendants

10 Antonio Corona slipped and fell at a Walmart store, fracturing his hip. While recovering 11 from hip surgery at a rehabilitation center, Corona contracted Covid-19, which ultimately killed 12 him. Plaintiff Leslie Valdes, the administrator of his estate, sued Wal-Mart in state court on June 13 8, 2022. The complaint demands “in excess of $15,000,” which is consistent with Nevada state 14 court pleading requirements. ECF No. 1-2 at 6. On July 18, 2022, Valdes filed a request to 15 exempt the case from the state court’s mandatory arbitration rule, disclosing over $200,000 in 16 medical bills. ECF No. 1-3. Wal-Mart removed the case to this court based on diversity 17 jurisdiction on August 17, 2022. ECF No. 1. Valdes now moves to remand the case to state court 18 because Wal-Mart removed the case more than 30 days after receiving the complaint. ECF No. 8. 19 “If the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable,” the defendant must remove 20 within 30 days of receiving another “paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is 21 one which is or has become removable.”

(b)(3). Wal-Mart contends it did not 22 know the value of the case until Valdes filed her request for exemption from arbitration. But the 23 complaint put Wal-Mart on notice that the value of the case exceeded this court’s $75,000 1}| jurisdictional floor. The complaint alleges that Corona fractured his hip from the fall, was 2|| transported by an ambulance to a hospital, had hip surgery, contracted Covid-19 while 3] rehabilitating, and died from the virus. ECF No. 1-2. The complaint asserts claims for negligence and wrongful death. It was “facially apparent from the complaint that the 5|| jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co.,

]| 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (simplified). Because the case stated by the complaint was removable, Wal- 7|| Mart should have removed it within 30 days of receipt. It did not, so removal was untimely. 8]| Consequently, I must remand this action to state court. 9 I THEREFORE ORDER that this case is remanded to the state court from which it was 10|| removed for all further proceedings. The Clerk of the Court is instructed to close this case. 11 DATED this 12th day of October, 2022. 12 Z - 8 ANDREWP.GORDON. 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23