1

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4 CAROLE HARPER, Case No 3:24-cv-449-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR SUPPLEMENTAL 6 v. BRIEFING

7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

8 Defendant.

9 Plaintiff Carole Harper sued Defendant United States of America in federal 10 court, alleging negligence after suffering injuries from tripping over an exposed 11 piece of rebar at Naval Air Station Fallon. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court is an 12 unopposed Motion for Leave to File a Petition for Removal filed by Petitioner Defense 13 Base Services, Inc. (“Petitioner”) (ECF No. 17). For the reasons stated, the Court directs 14 Petitioner to provide supplemental briefing. 15 Plaintiff filed this action on October 2, 2024. (ECF No. 1.) It appears that 16 on or about September 23, 2024, Plaintiff initiated a parallel state court 17 proceeding against Petitioner based on the same facts. (ECF No. 17.) Petitioner 18 subsequently moved for leave to file a petition for removal of the state court 19 proceeding, notwithstanding that it had missed the statutory time limit, in order 20 that the parties might eventually join their claims. Id. In its motion, Petitioner 21 asked that the time limit be excused because it had not retained counsel until 30 22 days from the service of the Summons and Complaint, and because all parties 23 were in favor. Id. Plaintiff stipulated to removal (ECF No. 17-1; ECF No. 18), while 24 Defendant indicated its non-opposition. (ECF No. 19.) 25 Petitions for removal are subject to mandatory time limits. Fristoe v. 26 Reynolds Metals Co.,

(9th Cir. 1980). A defendant ordinarily 27 must file the notice of removal within 30 days after it receives the initial pleading 28 1 or the summons, whichever period is shorter.

(b)(1). However, 2 if the initial pleading does not state a case that appears removable, the defendant 3 may file a notice of removal within 30 days after it receives the first document 4 that makes the possibility of removal “unequivocally clear and certain.” 28 U.S.C. 5 § 1446(b)(3); Dietrich v. Boeing Co.,

(9th Cir. 2021). It is 6 unclear from the state court records provided by Petitioner which rule applies: in 7 other words, Petitioner has not established whether the initial pleading stated a 8 removable case, or the date it received the first document establishing that the 9 case was removable. As a consequence, it is also unclear when the deadline for 10 Petitioner to file a notice of removal would have fallen.District courts within the 11 Ninth Circuit have opined that the time limitation on removals cannot be 12 extended by stipulation. DeMichele v. Loewen, Inc., No. C 12-00628 CRB, 2012

, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 1, 2012); Rosenfield v. GlobalTranz Enters., 14 Inc., No. CV-11-02327-PHX-NVW,

, at *2 (D. Ariz. Feb. 8, 15 2013); 14C Wright and Miller’s Federal Practice and Procedure § 3731 (Rev. 4th 16 ed. 2025). While courts may disregard the untimeliness of a filing in cases of 17 waiver of objection on appeal or estoppel, caselaw does not appear to establish a 18 general good cause exception nor an exception for delays in obtaining counsel. 19 Fristoe,

. See DeMichele,

, at *3. 20 While Petitioner and Plaintiff have stipulated to removal, Petitioner has not 21 provided the necessary information to enable this Court to calculate the deadline 22 to timely file for removal, nor provided authority that shows that the Court has 23 the authority to grant an untimely petition under the relevant circumstances. 24 THEREFORE IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner shall have until September 25 23, 2025, to file supplemental briefing on the issues described herein.

26 27 28 1 Dated this 5th day of September, 2025. 2

4 ANNER.TRAUM 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28