United States District Court, D. Oregon
JENNIFER CHRISTIAN, formerly known as JENNIFER HAVEMAN, Plaintiff,
UMPQUA BANK, an Oregon for profit banking institution, Defendant.
CRYSTAL M. LEWIS Marsh Higgins Beaty & Hatch Attorneys
C. LIVELY ALYSIA J. HARRIS Ogeltree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart Attorneys for Defendant
OPINION AND ORDER
J. BROWN, United States District Judge
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.
reasons that follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion.
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.
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.
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.
September 22, 2016, CT Corporation notified Defendant that it
had received Plaintiff's mailing with the Summons and
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.
November 3, 2016, Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remand this
matter to state court.
motion to remand is the proper procedure for challenging
removal. Babasa v. LensCrafters, Inc., 498 F.3d 972,
974 (9th Cir. 2007).
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 ...