Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Christian v. Umpqua Bank

United States District Court, D. Oregon

February 2, 2017

JENNIFER CHRISTIAN, formerly known as JENNIFER HAVEMAN, Plaintiff,
v.
UMPQUA BANK, an Oregon for profit banking institution, Defendant.

          CRYSTAL M. LEWIS Marsh Higgins Beaty & Hatch Attorneys for Plaintiff

          LEAH C. LIVELY ALYSIA J. HARRIS Ogeltree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart Attorneys for Defendant

          OPINION AND ORDER

          ANNA J. BROWN, United States District Judge

         This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion (#9) to Remand this matter to state court on the ground that Defendant's Notice of Removal (#1) filed in this Court on October 4, 2016, was untimely.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.

         BACKGROUND

         On August 10, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the Multnomah County Circuit Court of the State of Oregon. Plaintiff alleged claims for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq., as well as state-law claims pursuant to Washington state law.

         On August 11, 2016, a process server served the Summons and Complaint in the state-court action on Travis Krapf who was on duty at Defendant's branch office at 1 S.W. Columbia Street in Portland, Oregon.

         On September 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for order of default. On that same date Plaintiff also mailed a copy of the Summons and Complaint to CT Corporation, Defendant's registered agent in Salem, Oregon.

         On September 22, 2016, CT Corporation notified Defendant that it had received Plaintiff's mailing with the Summons and Complaint.

         On October 4, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in this Court on the basis of federal question and supplemental jurisdiction. On October 11, 2016, Defendant filed an Answer to Plaintiff's Complaint.

         On November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand this matter to state court.

         STANDARDS

         A motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging removal. Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972, 974 (9th Cir. 2007).

         28 U.S.C. § 1446(a) provides in pertinent part: "A defendant or defendants desiring to remove any civil action . . . from a State court shall file in the district court of the United States for the district and division within which such action is pending a notice of removal." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) provides in pertinent part: "The notice of removal of a civil action . . . shall be filed within thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is based." The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal is resolved in favor of remand. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). See also Prize Frieze, Inc. v. Matrix, Inc.,167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999), overruled on other grounds by Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006). The party seeking removal bears the burden ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.