Vagle V Archstone Communities Class Action PDF

____________________________________________________________________________________
PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION TO REMAND

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
R. Rex Parris, Esq. (SBN 96567)
[email protected]
Alexander R. Wheeler, Esq. (SBN 239541)
[email protected]
Kitty Szeto, Esq. (SBN 258136)
[email protected]
John M. Bickford, Esq. (SBN 280929)
[email protected]
R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
43364 10th Street West
Lancaster, California 93534
Telephone: (661) 949-2595
Facsimile: (661) 949-7524

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Putative Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JENNIFER VAGLE and GEORGE
PONCE, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated;

Plaintiffs,

v.

ARCHSTONE COMMUNITIES, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation,
ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability corporation,
and ARCHSTONE LONG BEACH, LP,
a Delaware limited partnership, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive;

Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Fed. Case No. 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJ W
State Case No. BC480931

CLASS ACTION

PLAINTIFFS NOTICE OF MOTION AND
MOTION TO REMAND;
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES

[Filed Concurrently with [Proposed] Order;
Request for Judicial Notice; and Declaration of
John M. Bickford]

Date: June 23, 2014
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 850
Judge: Hon. R. Gary Klausner

J ury Trial Date: None Set
Complaint Filed: March 14, 2012

)
Case 2:14-cv-03476-RGK-AJW Document 14 Filed 05/23/14 Page 1 of 27 Page ID #:773

1
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 23, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter
as the matter may be heard before the Honorable R. Gary Klausner in Courtroom 850 of
the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division,
located at 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, California, 90012-1565, Plaintiffs Jennifer
Vagle and George Ponce (Plaintiffs) will and hereby move the Court for an order
remanding this case back to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of
Los Angeles. This motion is made upon the grounds that Defendant Archstone
Communities, LLC (Archstone Communities) has waived its right to remove. See 28
U.S.C. 1446(b).
Additionally, because Archstone Communities lacked an objectively reasonable
basis supporting its removal, Plaintiffs request this court to award them $12,501.16 in
attorneys fees and costs, which was incurred as a result of Archstone Communities
removal.
This motion is made following the conference of counsel pursuant to L.R. 7.3 which
took place on May 7, 2014 and continued to the filing of this motion. It is based upon this
Notice, Memorandum of Point and Authorities, and the Declaration of John M. Bickford,
the Courts file and records in this action, all matters which may be judicially noticed
pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201, and such other and further evidence and
arguments as may be presented to the Court in support thereof at or before the hearing on
this Motion.

Date: May 23, 2014 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM

By: /s/ John M. Bickford
John M. Bickford

i
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 1
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ..................................................... 1
A. Plaintiff Vagles Experience at Archstone Warner Center. ...................... 1
B. The Original Complaint. ............................................................................... 2
C. The Demurrer to the Original Complaint. ................................................. 2
D. The First Amended Complaint. ................................................................... 3
E. The Demurrer to Plaintiff Vagles First Amended Complaint. ................ 3
F. Plaintiff Vagles Second Amended Complaint ........................................... 4
G. The Courts Orders Limited Discovery. ..................................................... 5
H. Plaintiff Conducts Limited Discovery and Moves For
Leave to Amend to Add Archstone Communities, LLC. .......................... 5
I. Plaintiffs Third and Fourth Complaints. ................................................... 6
J. Archstone Long Beach Removes to Federal Court and
This Court Grants Plaintiffs Motion to Remand ...................................... 7
L. The Day After the State Court Recognizes the Remand, Archstone
Communities Re-Removes This Case to Federal Court. ........................... 9
III. LEGAL STANDARDS UNDER CAFA. ............................................................... 9
IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................... 10
A. Archstone Communities Has Repeatedly Waived Its
Right to Remove This Two-Year Old Case to Federal Court. ................ 10
1. Communities Waived Its Right to Remove by Not
Doing So Within 30-Days of Being Served With
Plaintiff Vagles First and Third Amended Complaints. .................... 11
2. Archstone Waived Its Right to Remove By Not
Removing Within 30-Days of Receiving Chris J enkins
First Declaration. ................................................................................. 14

ii
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE

3. Archstone Communities Waived Its Right to Remove
By Not Removing When Archstone Long Beach Did. ....................... 16
4. Archstone Communities Waived Its Right to
Remove by Not Removing Within 30-Days of
This Courts Previous Remand Order. ................................................ 17
B. Archstone Communities Data Points Are Not Supported
by Competent Proof. ................................................................................... 17
C. The Court Should Award Plaintiffs the Fees and Costs
Associated with Archstone Communities Frivolous Removal. ............... 20
IV. CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 20


iii
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
PAGE(S)

Cases
Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co.,
443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................. 9, 10, 18
Amoche v. Guarantee Trust Life Ins. Co.,
556 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................. 19
Banta v. American Medical Response Inc.,
No. CV 1103586 GAF (RZx), 2011 WL 2837642
(C.D. Cal. J uly 15, 2011) ........................................................................................... 13, 14
Benson v. SI Handling Systems, Inc.,
188 F.3d 780 (7th Cir. 1999) ........................................................................................... 16
Duncan v. Stuetzle,
76 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................. 9
Garibay v. Archstone Communities LLC,
539 Fed Appx 763 (9th Cir. 2013) ................................................................................. 18
Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) ............................................................................... 10, 18, 19
Green v. Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc.
No. CV08-7138 SVWJ WJ X, 2008 WL 5246051
(C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2008) .......................................................................................... 18, 19
Guglielmino v. McKee Food Corp.,
506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) ........................................................................................... 17
Harris v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co.,
425 F.3d 689 (9th Cir. 2005) ........................................................................................... 12
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
511 U.S. 357 (1994) .......................................................................................................... 9

iv
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE(S)
Cases

Libby v. City Natl Bank,
592 F.2d 504 (9th Cir.1978) .............................................................................................. 8
Lowdermilk v. U.S. Natl Assn,
479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) ......................................................................... 10, 17, 19, 20
Lozano v. GPE Controls,
859 F.Supp. 1036 (S.D. Tex 1994) ................................................................................. 15
MacLeod v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust,
886 F. Supp. 16 (D. Or. 1995) ......................................................................................... 17
Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp.,
546 U.S. 132 (2005) ........................................................................................................ 20
One Sylvan Rd. N. Assocs. v. Lark Intl, Ltd.,
889 F. Supp. 60 (D. Conn. 1995) .............................................................................. 16, 17
Roberson v. Orkin Exterminating Co.,
770 F.Supp. 1324 (N.D. Ind.1991) .................................................................................. 11
Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC,
728 F.3d 975 (Aug. 27, 2013) ......................................................................................... 10
Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P.,
720 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 2013) ..................................................... 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16
Rynearson v. Motricity, Inc.,
626 F.Supp.2d 1093 (W.D. Wash. 2009) ........................................................................ 15
Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co.,
102 F.3d 398 (9
th
Cir. 1996) ............................................................................................ 17
Seedman v. United States District Court for the Central District of California,
837 F.2d 413 (9th Cir. 1988) ........................................................................................... 17

v
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PAGE(S)
Cases

St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
303 U.S. 283 ...................................................................................................................... 9
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson,
537 U.S. 28 (2002) .......................................................................................................... 10
Sys. Design Solutions Inc. v. Watch Sys. LLC,
No. CV 09-6871 PA (PJ Wx), 2009 WL 3245813
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2009) .................................................................................................. 16
Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co.,
561 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2009) ........................................................................................... 10
Trang Nguyen v. Nordstrom, Inc.,
No. SACV 1101334 DDP (MLGx), 2012 WL 1956905
(C.D. Cal. May 30, 2012) .......................................................................................... 18, 19
Vagle v. Archstone Communities, LLC,
No. CV 1309044 RGK (AJ Wx), 2014 WL 463532
(C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014) .................................................................................................... 8
Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 18
Statutes
28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(5)(B) ................................................................................................. 10
28 U.S.C. 1441 .................................................................................................................. 9
28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1)....................................................................................................... 10
28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3)........................................................................................... 10, 12, 15
28 U.S.C. 1447(c) ............................................................................................................ 20
Cal. Civil Code 1950.5 ............................................................................................ 1, 2, 11

1
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION
And were back! For the second time in only five months, this case has been removed
to federal court by a group of defendants desperately trying to avoid further litigating this
two-year old case in state court. Last time, we saw Archstone Long Beach try to remove this
case. This time, Archstone Communities is giving it a try. But unlike Archstone Long
Beachwho was only recently been added to this caseArchstone Communities has been a
defendant in this case as far back as August 22, 2012 and could have removed as soon as it
was initially served with Plaintiff Vagles First Amended Complaint. Worse yet, Archstone
Communities current removal is based on the same facts that Archstone Long Beach used
to support its removal. The only difference now is that its a different party removing. But
the facts show that Archstone Communities has long been in the possession of the
information it is currently using to support its removal. Accordingly, Archstone
Communities has waived its right to remove, and the Court should again grant Plaintiffs
motion to remand.
II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. Plaintiff Vagles Experience at Archstone Warner Center.
From 2009 to 2010, Plaintiff Vagle leased an apartment at a complex called Archstone
Warner Center, which was owned by Defendant ASN Warner Center, LLC. See Fourth
Amended Complaint at 18. As a condition of her tenancy, Plaintiff Vagle was required to
pay an $849.00 security deposit, id. at 19, which, under California Civil Code section
1950.5 would be returned to her if she left her unit clean and in the same condition it was at
the inception of her tenancy, subject to reasonable wear and tear. Although Plaintiff Vagle
fully complied with this requirement, id. at 20, the complex still withheld $80.00 for
apartment cleaning, $60 for carpet cleaning, and $142.27 for painting from her security
deposit at the end of her tenancy, id. at 21.
After she was charged, Plaintiff spoke with other ex-tenants who leased apartments
from other Archstone apartment complexes. Fourth Amended Complaint at 22. Each ex-

2
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
tenant told her that they had also been charged for cleaning and painting at the end of their
tenancies even though they left their apartments clean and in the same condition they were
when they moved in. Id. Plaintiff also searched the internet for online reviews and
discovered that mostif not allof the Archstone apartment complexes in California have
negative reviews left by ex-tenants claiming that they were also charged similar cleaning and
painting fees. See, e.g., id. at 30.
B. The Original Complaint.
Based on these facts, Plaintiff Vagle filed this putative class action on March 14,
2012, alleging that the Archstone apartment complexes in California have a systematic
policy and procedure of always charging their tenants for cleaning, painting, and carpet
cleaning at the end of every tenancy, regardless of the actual condition of the apartment unit
in violation of California Civil Code section 1950.5 and the complexes standardized leases.
See Compl. at 16 (Ex. A). Because her allegations concerned each of the approximately 70
Archstone apartment complexes in California, Plaintiff Vagle named as the defendants four
Archstone entities she believed were responsible for the state-wide systematic policy and
procedure: (1) Archstone Builders Incorporated; (2) Archstone Property Management
(California) Incorporated; (3) Smith Four, Inc. d/b/a Archstone-Smith Four, Inc.; and (4)
Smith Two, Inc. d/b/a Archstone-Smith Two, Inc. This allegation was based on the fact that
these four Archstone entities were the only Archstone entities in California that did not
appear to be the direct owner of an actual apartment complex, and therefore were the only
entities that could be legally responsible for the alleged statewide policy.
Pursuant to these allegations, the Complaint alleged six causes of action: (1)
Violations of Civil Code section 1950.5; (2) Breach of Contract; (3) Unjust Enrichment; (4)
FraudIntentional Misrepresentation; (5) FraudConcealment; and (6) Violations of
Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq. See Compl. at 2356.
C. The Demurrer to the Original Complaint.
On April 16, 2012, the four defendants filed a joint demurrer alleging, among other
things, that they could not be liable for any of Plaintiff Vagles causes of action because her

3
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
lease indicated that ASN Warner Center, LLC was her landlord, and therefore the only
proper party to sue. On August 8, 2012, the state court partially agreed and sustained their
demurrer, noting that the lease clearly shows that [Plaintiff Vagles] tenant-landlord
relationship was with ASN Warner Center LLC. Order (Aug. 8, 2012) (Ex. B). The court
went on to add that Plaintiff Vagle will need to either drop the current defendants or expand
upon the present pleading if she hopes to assert a valid basis for holding these defendants
liable for ASN Warner Center LLCs conduct as landlord. Id. During the hearing, the
court explained how Plaintiff Vagle might be able to do this:
[I]n the running of real estate . . . a management company may
have substantial responsibility for what happens day-to-day in a
property[. S]o if somebody slips [on a banana peel], you
may . . . sue the owner of the fee simple, but you may also choose
to sue the owner of the management company, who [failed] to get
the banana peel up in a timely fashion. . . . Thats to say different
people will have different interests in a piece of real estate, but
they may not [sic] bona fide, separate defendants or co-defendants.
Reporters Transcript at 5:246:14 (Aug. 8, 2012) (Ex. C).
D. The First Amended Complaint.
On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff Vagle filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC). In
addition to adding Archstone Communities, LLC as a defendant, Plaintiffs FAC contained
additional theories of liability that attempted to render the now-five defendants liable for the
systematic policy and procedure of always charging its tenants for cleaning and painting at
the end of every tenancy. FAC at 1416 (Ex. D). Additionally, the FAC removed the
breach of contract and fraud causes of action, thereby reducing the number of causes of
action alleged from six to the following three: (1) Violations of Civil Code section 1950.5;
(2) Unjust Enrichment; and (3) Violations of Business and Professions Code sections 17200
et seq. See id. at 3953.
E. The Demurrer to Plaintiff Vagles First Amended Complaint.
On September 28, 2012, the five defendants filed another demurrer, again alleging
that all of Plaintiffs Vagles causes of action fail because she didnt name ASN Warner

4
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Center, LLC as the sole defendant. On October 23, 2012, the court again sustained the
defendants demurrer, this time because Plaintiffs factual showing in opposition to the
motion in support of the claim that each of these defendants is co-liable is basically an
assertion that if she were allowed discovery, the proof might be had. Order (Oct. 23, 2012)
(Ex. E). The court explained that Plaintiff Vagle should name ASN Warner Center, LLC as
the sole defendant and then
take discovery from ASN Warner Center, LLC as to the extent to
which its affairs are controlled by others if that is the truth or if
theyre not controlled by others to see what the facts are. And if
the affairs of that defendant are controlled by others where there is
a real economic intertwining notwithstanding the representation
made in support of the motion before the court today, then well
see where that takes us, including the theoretical possibility that
some of the currently named defendants might [be] appropriately
be pulled back into the case when theres a factual basis for doing
so.
Reporters Transcript at 5:246:14 (Oct. 23, 2012) (Ex. F); see also id. at 9:212, 12:1315,
13:2114:22. The court also noted that it didnt agree with the five defendants claim that
ASN Warner Center, LLC was the only proper defendant to sue because it was the legal
owner of Archstone Warner Center. It explained, [O]nce you have a management company
touching multiple units there could well be a reason to blame the management company for
how the security deposits are handled, even if they are truly different ownerships of [the
apartment complexes]. Id. at 11:914; see also id. at 15:615.
F. Plaintiff Vagles Second Amended Complaint
On October 25, 2012, Plaintiff Vagle filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC),
naming ASN Warner Center, LLC as the sole defendant; however, she still alleged that the
ARCHSTONE DOES, either directly or through corporate affiliates, have been engaged in
the business of owning, developing, managing, maintaining, and leasing approximately 70
multi-unit apartment complexes throughout the State of California, including but not limited
to the premises allegedly owned by Defendant ASN WARNER CENTER, LLC, rendering

5
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
them legally responsible for the events and happenings referred to in this Second Amended
Complaint. SAC at 8 (Ex. G). Defendant again demurred, which the court overruled on
December 20, 2012. See Order (Dec. 22, 2012) (Ex. H).
G. The Courts Orders Limited Discovery.
Also on December 20, 2012, the court lifted the stay on discovery, but limited
discovery to the following three topics relating to whether or not the ARCHSTONE DOES
are legally responsible for the acts alleged in the SAC:
Plaintiff Vagles individual claims asserted in this case, see Reporters
Transcript at 13:2324 (Dec. 20, 2012) (Ex. I);
ASN Warner Center, LLCs organizational structure and relationship to
other Archstone entities, id. at 15:1528; and
ASN Warner Center, LLCs policies and procedures regarding the day-
to-day management of the obtaining and refunding of security deposits,
id. at 13:2728.
H. Plaintiff Conducts Limited Discovery and Moves For Leave to Amend
to Add Archstone Communities, LLC.
For the next several months Plaintiff Vagle conducted discovery pursuant to the state
courts order. Based on this discovery, she moved for leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint on August 23, 2013, re-naming Archstone Communities, LLC as the sole
defendant and adding George Ponce as an additional named plaintiff. See Motion for Leave
to Amend to File TAC (Ex. J).
The court, however, denied the motion, holding that it wasnt prepared to find as a
factual matter that she and the putative class have a factually well taken claim against the
corporate affiliate Archstone Communities, LLC even though such party is not the stated
lessor of the property giving rights to this dispute. Order at 2 (Oct. 8, 2013) (Ex. K).
Instead, the court stated it was merely willing to accept that the showing made [was]
sufficient to allow the addition of Archstone Communities, LLC. Id. The court therefore

6
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ordered Plaintiff to file a new, alternative [Proposed] Third Amended complaint that
includes ASN Warner Center, LLC and Mr. Ponces nominal landlord. Id.
I. Plaintiffs Third and Fourth Complaints.
Plaintiff Vagle filed a Third Amended Complaint on October 24, 2013; however, she
inadvertently named ASN Long Beach Harbor, LLC rather than Archstone Long Beach,
L.P., which was the entity identified on Plaintiff Ponces lease. The parties therefore
stipulated to Plaintiffs filing a Fourth Amended Complaint, replacing ASN Long Beach
Harbor, LLC with Archstone Long Beach, L.P. See Stipulation (Ex. L). The Fourth
Amended Complaint was filed on November 21, 2013.
Pursuant to the state courts directions, the Fourth Amended Complaint alleges the
possibility of two separate and distinct class actions against three separate defendants. First,
Plaintiffs define their principle class on behalf of all tenants who leased an apartment in
California managed by Archstone Communities, LLC:
All persons, except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code
section 1161, who leased an apartment in California managed by
Defendant [Archstone Communities, LLC], and were charged for
apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet cleaning or
replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5 within four
years prior to the filing of Plaintiff VAGLEs original complaint
up to final judgment.
4AC at 34 (emphasis added). This class is alleged on the presumption that Plaintiffs will
be able to prove that Archstone Communities, LLC is the tenants constructive landlord,
making them legally responsible for the acts alleged in the complaint to all former tenants at
apartment complexes managed by Archstone Communities, LLC in California. See 4AC at
1317.
In case this argument fails, the state court ordered Plaintiffs to allege, as an
alternative, two subclassesone against Defendant Archstone Long Beach by Plaintiff
Ponce and one against Defendant ASN Warner Center, LLC by Plaintiff Vagle. Unlike the

7
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
principle class, these two subclasses are confined solely to the properties owned by these two
defendants:
Defendant ASN Warner Center, LLC Subclass: All persons,
except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code section
1161, who leased an apartment at Archstone Warner Center, and
were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5
within four years prior to the filing of Plaintiff VAGLEs original
complaint up to final judgment.

Defendant Archstone Long Beach, LP Subclass: All persons,
except those who were evicted pursuant to Civil Code section
1161, who leased an apartment at Archstone Long Beach, and
were charged for apartment cleaning and painting and/or carpet
cleaning or replacement in violation of Civil Code section 1950.5
within four years prior to the filing of Plaintiff PONCEs original
complaint up to final judgment.
4AC at 35(a).
In other words, Plaintiffs are seeking either (1) a class encompassing all tenants who
leased an apartment managed by Archstone Communities, LLC or (2) two subclasses, one
encompassing all tenants who leased an apartment from Archstone Long Beach and one
encompassing all tenants who leased an apartment from Archstone Warner Center. In no
situation would Archstone Communities, LLC be liable to members of the two subclass or
Archstone Long Beach and ASN Warner Center, LLC be liable to the members of the
principle class.
J. Archstone Long Beach Removes to Federal Court and This Court
Grants Plaintiffs Motion to Remand
On December 6, 2013i.e., 632 days after this case was originally filed in state
courtArchstone Long Beach (and only Archstone Long Beach) removed this case to
federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004 (CAFA). See Long Beach
Removal (Ex. M). To support its removal, Archstone Long Beach relied on the declaration
of Chris Jenkins, who oversees the processing of [Archstone Communities, LLCs] financial

8
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
information and electronic data. Jenkins allege[d] that over the time in question
approximately 69,000 tenants resided in Archstone Apartments; they paid security deposits
of approximately $34,000,000; and they were charged approximately $21,000,000 for
apartment cleaning, painting and/or carpet replacement. Vagle v. Archstone Communities,
LLC, No. CV 1309044 RGK (AJWx), 2014 WL 463532, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 5, 2014).
Archstone Long Beachs removal, however, d[id] not list the number of tenants or
approximate charges associated with [Archstone Long Beach, L.P.] or [Archstone Warner
Center LLC] individually. Id.
Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that Archstone Long Beach could not rely on the
amount in controversy for the Archstone Communities, LLC class to support its removal.
The Court agreed, explaining
[Archstone Long Beach, L.P.] calculates the amount in
controversy by aggregating potential damages to all tenants who
lived in any of the 70 multi-unit apartment complexes managed by
[Archstone Communities, LLC]. However, in order to be
potentially liable for damages to all former tenants of Archstone
Apartments, [Archstone Long Beach, L.P.] would have to be
jointly liable with [Archstone Communities, LLC], see Libby v.
City Natl Bank, 592 F.2d 504, 510 (9th Cir.1978), or Defendants
would need to be one legal entity and not separate entities. The
Court is not persuaded that the facts alleged in Plaintiffs
Complaint are consistent with either joint liability or the existence
of one entity. Therefore, [Archstone Long Beach, L.P.] does not
properly calculate its potential liability and does not satisfy the
CAFA amount in controversy requirement.
Vagle, 2014 WL 463532 at *2. Accordingly, the Court granted Plaintiffs motion to remand
on February 5, 2014.
On February 14, 2014, Archstone Long Beach filed a petition for permission to appeal
this Courts remand order, which the Ninth Circuit summarily denied on April 10th. See
Order Denying Petition (Apr. 10, 2014) (Ex. N).

9
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
L. The Day After the State Court Recognizes the Remand, Archstone
Communities Re-Removes This Case to Federal Court.
On May 6, 2014one day after the state court recognized this Courts remand
orderArchstone Communities re-removed this case to federal court based on a
substantially similar (albeit more detailed) declaration of Mr. J enkins. See Notice of
Removal. The declaration states that during the class period: (1) 69,508 tenants resided in
Archstones apartment complexes in California; (2) they paid security deposits of
$34,592,486; and (3) they were charged $21,564,452 for apartment cleaning, painting, and
carpet cleaning/replacement. Second Jenkins Decl. at 7.
Additionally, Archstone Communities, LLC claims that it has not waived its right to
remove because (1) neither the Fourth Amended Complaint nor any prior pleading, motion
or other document served on Communities (or any other defendant) has set forth any amount
of monetary damages sought and therefore (2) Communities can remove this case under
CAFA based on its own information outside the thirty-day time period for removal. Notice
of Removal at 21. Plaintiffs again move to remand.
III. LEGAL STANDARDS UNDER CAFA.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only the power
authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 357, 377 (1994); see also Abrego
Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 68485 (9th Cir. 2006) (per curium) (citing
cases). A defendant may remove a state civil action to federal court only if the case could
have originally been filed in federal court to begin with. See 28 U.S.C. 1441.
Consistent with their limited jurisdiction, federal courts apply a strong presumption
against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per
curium) (citing St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 28899)). This
means that removal statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance. Id. (emphasis added and citations omitted); accord Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d

10
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)); see also Syngenta Crop Prot.,
Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002). It also means the defendant always has the burden
of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (emphasis added); see also
Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 68485.
These standards apply with equal force to removals brought under CAFA. CAFA
grants district courts original jurisdiction over class actions with: (1) at least 100 class
members; (2) minimal diversity; and (3) an amount in controversy that exceeds $5 million.
See 28 U.S.C. 1332(d)(5)(B); accord Lowdermilk v. U.S. Natl Assn, 479 F.3d 994, 997
(9th Cir. 2007) overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728
F.3d 975 (Aug. 27, 2013). [U]nder CAFA the burden of establishing removal jurisdiction
remains, as before, on the proponent of federal jurisdiction, Id. at 996 (quoting Abrego
Abrego, 443 F.3d at 685)), and the well-established presumption against federal removal
jurisdiction still applies, Tanoh v. Dow Chem. Co., 561 F.3d 945, 953 (9th Cir. 2009).
IV. ARGUMENT
A. Archstone Communities Has Repeatedly Waived Its Right to Remove
This Two-Year Old Case to Federal Court.
Removing defendants have potentially three 30-day windows in which to remove a
case to federal court: (1) within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of
the initial pleading, 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(1); (2) if it is unclear whether the case is
removable from the face of the initial pleading, within 30 days after receipt by the
defendant . . . of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it
may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable, 28 U.S.C.
1446(b)(3); or (3) within 30 days after a defendant discovers, based on its own
investigation, that a case is removable, Roth v. CHA Hollywood Med. Ctr., L.P., 720 F.3d
1121, 1123 (9th Cir. 2013). The failure to timely remove within any of these three 30-day

11
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
windows acts as a waiver of the right to subsequently remove. Id. at 1125 (We conclude
that 1441 and 1446, read together, permit a defendant to remove outside the two thirty-
day periods on the basis of its own information, provided that it has not run afoul of either of
the thirty-day deadlines.). As with all other requirements for removal jurisdiction, the
removing defendant bears the burden of proving the timeliness of its removal and [s]everal
courts have noted that the thirty-day time limit for petitioning for removal will be strictly
construed against a defendant. Roberson v. Orkin Exterminating Co., 770 F.Supp. 1324,
1328 (N.D. Ind.1991) (citing cases).
1. Communities Waived Its Right to Remove by Not Doing So
Within 30-Days of Being Served With Plaintiff Vagles First and
Third Amended Complaints.
Plaintiffs Fourth Amended Complaint alleges that Archstone Communities has a
systematic policy and procedure of always charging its California tenants for apartment
cleaning, carpet cleaning, and painting at the end of every tenancy regardless of the actual
condition of the apartment unit in violation of California Civil Code section 1950.5. See
Notice of Removal at 2. Based on this allegation, Mr. J enkins searched Archstone
Communities computerized property management software system, which contains the
data on how many tenants leased Archstone apartment units in California during the class
period (69,508), how much they collectively paid in security deposits ($34,592,486), and
how much they were collectively charged for apartment cleaning, painting, and carpet
cleaning/replacement ($21,564,452). See Second Jenkins Decl. at 7.
But the problem with Archstone Communities removal is that for the past two years
Plaintiffs have been consistently alleging the same underlying allegation that Archstone
Communities is currently relying on to remove. For example, on August 22, 2012,
Archstone Communities was served with Plaintiff Vagles First Amended Complaint,
whichlike the Fourth Amended Complaint herealleged that Archstone Communities has
a systematic policy and procedure of always charging its tenants for apartment cleaning,
carpet cleaning, and painting at the end of every tenancy regardless of the actual condition of

12
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the apartment unit. FAC at 26 (Ex. G). Despite this identical allegation, Archstone
Communities has failed to explain why it was unable to search its computerized property
management software systemlike it did after being served with Plaintiffs Fourth
Amended Complaintand remove this case to federal court within 30 days of being served
with the complaint. Consequently, its failure to remove was a waiver of its right to
subsequently remove. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3) (a removing defendant waives its right to
remove if it fails to remove within 30 days after receipt by the defendant . . . of a copy of an
amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that
the case is one which is or has become removable).
Similarlyeven if Archstone Communities hadnt waived its right to remove by
failing to do so within 30 days of being served with Plaintiff Vagles First Amended
Complaint (it did)Archstone Communities waived its right to remove by failing to remove
within 30 days of being served with Plaintiffs Third Amended Complaint. Like the First
and Third Amended Complaints, the Third Amended Complaintwhich was served on
Archstone Communities on October 24, 2013also alleged that Archstone Communities,
LLC has a systematic policy and procedure of always charging for cleaning and painting at
the end of every tenancy. See Ex L.
Relying on Roth, 720 F.3d at 1125, Archstone Communities claims it wasnt obligated
to remove earlier because its current removal is based on its own information outside the
thirty-day time period for removal. Notice of Removal at 21. But, as the putative class
members previous landlord, Archstone Communitiesunlike Plaintiffswas always in
possession of the data needed to determine the class size and amount in controversy, and
were therefore always able to remove on the grounds they assert here. And, while it is true
that a removing defendant is not required to investigate the necessary jurisdictional facts
within the first thirty days of receiving an indeterminate complaint, Harris v. Bankers Life
& Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 693 (9th Cir. 2005), a defendant is still required to remove within
the statutory windows when it is in possession of information suggesting that the amount in
controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum, Banta v. American Medical Response Inc.,

13
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
No. CV 1103586 GAF (RZx), 2011 WL 2837642, at *6 (C.D. Cal. July 15, 2011)
(emphasis added).
The court in Banta v. American Medical Response Inc. explains this concept well.
There, the plaintiff filed a wage and hour class action against its employer seeking to
represent a class of all California employees of Defendants during the applicable statute of
limitations period. Id. at *7. As is common with wage and hour class actions, the
complaint did not allege the amount in controversy, the size of the class, or the class
members average hourly rates. Id. at *2. Three years after the initial complaint was filed,
however, the employer removed under CAFA based on the plaintiffs admission that the
amount in controversy exceeded $5 million. Id. at *3. The court, however, held that the
employer waived its right to remove because it was required to remove within thirty days of
receiving the complaint [g]iven that [it] purportedly kn[ew] how many persons [it]
employ[ed] and how much they [we]re paid, and was therefore on notice that the amount
in controversy . . . was a very large sum of money. Id. at *7. Thus, Banta holds that a
defendant must remove within 30 days of receipt of the initial complaint when the
information needed to prove the amount in controversy is readily in the defendants
possession.
Roth does not hold otherwise. There, the defendant supported CAFAs minimal
diversity requirement with a declaration from a putative class member that stated that she
had moved to Nevada in late 2011 and that she intended to live in Nevada for the foreseeable
future. Roth, 720 F.3d at 1123. To get this declaration, the employer promptly contacted
its former employees in order to determine whether any of them had moved to a different
state, id. at 1125 (emphasis added), and then promptly filed a notice of removal, id. at
1126 (emphasis added). Based on these facts, the court held that the defendant had not
waived its right to remove. After all, a defendant should not be required to investigate
within 30 days the current residences of what could be thousands of putative class members
in order to determine whether CAFAs minimal diversity requirement is satisfied.

14
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
This case is different. Unlike whether a former tenant has moved to a different state,
an landlord presumably know[s] how many [former tenants it has] and how much those
[tenants paid in security deposits]. Banta, 2011 WL 2837642 at *1. Archstone
Communities fails to explain how it is an exception to this presumption. In fact, Archstone
Communities confirmed that this information was readily available to it when it explained
that its investigation consisted of nothing more than searching its computerized property
management software system for the necessary data. Second J enkins Decl. at 5 (Feb. 2,
2014).
Additionally, it is important to note that this information was never in the hands of the
Plaintiffs. Roth explained that its holding was based entirely on the fact that a plaintiff
should not be able to prevent or delay removal by failing to reveal information showing
removability and then objecting to removal when the defendant has discovered that
information on its own. Roth, 720 F.3d at 1225 (emphasis added). Here, [Archstone
Communities is] in the best position to adduce evidence regarding its former tenants. Id. at
1130. And there is no reason why it couldnt have come forward with this information
sooneror at the very least explained why it took over two years for this information to be
obtained. These facts make it clear that Archstone Communities ignore[d] [Plaintiffs]
pleadings . . . from which removability [could] be ascertained and s[ought] removal only
when it be[came] strategically advantageous for it to do so. Id. at 1225. Accordingly, it
waived its right to remove, and remand should be granted.
2. Archstone Waived Its Right to Remove By Not Removing Within
30-Days of Receiving Chris Jenkins First Declaration.
Nevertheless, even if Archstone Communities didnt waive its right to remove by not
removing within 30 days of receiving Plaintiff Vagles First or Third Amended Complaints,
Archstone Communities still waived its right to remove by failing to remove within 30-days
of receiving a copy of Mr. Jenkins first declaration, which it received early as November
21, 2013. See First Jenkins Decl. (Nov. 21, 2013) (Ex M).

15
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
As explained above, a defendant waives its right to remove if it fails to remove
within 30 days after receipt . . . , through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended
pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is
one which is or has become removable. 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3) (emphasis added). The
type of document that constitutes an other paper for the purposes of the statute is broad,
reflecting courts embracive construction of the term. Rynearson v. Motricity, Inc., 626
F.Supp.2d 1093, 1097 (W.D. Wash. 2009). For example, courts have had no trouble holding
that discovery documents, briefing, and deposition testimony all qualify as other papers
that can trigger the 30 day removal clock. Id. The only requirement is that the other paper
be one that is generated within the specific state proceeding which has been removed.
Id. (quoting Lozano v. GPE Controls, 859 F.Supp. 1036, 1038 (S.D. Tex 1994)). Here, Mr.
Jenkins November 21st declarationwhich was used to support Archstone Long Beachs
removalqualified as an other paper from which it [could] first be ascertained that the case
is one which is or has become removable. As such, Archstone Communities was required
to remove within 30 days of receiving the declaration. See 28 U.S.C. 1446(b)(3).
To be sure, Plaintiffs attempted to meet-and-confer about this prior to filing their
motion to remand. They asked whether Archstone Communities had any response to [their]
argument that Archstone Communities waived its right to remove by not removing within 30
days of receiving Mr. Jenkins first declaration on November 21, 2013. Bickford Decl., Ex.
A. at 2. They also asked why Archstone Communities didnt remove concurrently with
Archstone Long Beach and whether this tactic was a cognizant attempt to create a second
opportunity at removal if Archstone Long Beachs removal failed. Id. Nevertheless,
despite asking Archstone Communities for authority to support its removal, Archstone
Communities merely stated that the Roth case confirms that Plaintiffs waiver argument is
without merit. Id. But Roth confirms that a defendant must remove a case within 30 days
of when it receives an other papersuch as a declarationfrom which it may first be
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable. 720 F.3d at 1124. It
also confirms that the failure to do so constitutes the waiver of the right to subsequently

16
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
remove. Id. at 1125 (We conclude that 1441 and 1446, read together, permit a defendant
to remove outside the two thirty-day periods on the basis of its own information, provided
that it has not run afoul of either of the thirty-day deadlines. (emphasis added)).
Therefore, since Archstone Communities did not remove within 30 days of receiving Mr.
Jenkins first declarationlike Archstone Long Beach didArchstone Communities
waived its right to remove
3. Archstone Communities Waived Its Right to Remove By Not
Removing When Archstone Long Beach Did.
In addition to failing to remove within 30 days of receiving Mr. Jenkins first
declaration, Archstone Communities also waived its right by not removing concurrently with
Archstone Long Beach. Although multiple removals are permitted under CAFA, [a]
second removal is [only] permissible when made on new grounds arising from subsequent
pleadings or events. Sys. Design Solutions Inc. v. Watch Sys. LLC, No. CV 09-6871 PA
(PJWx), 2009 WL 3245813, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 7, 2009) (emphasis added); accord One
Sylvan Rd. N. Assocs. v. Lark Intl, Ltd., 889 F. Supp. 60, 63 (D. Conn. 1995) (A defendant
who fails in an attempt to remove on the initial pleadings can file a second removal petition
when subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for removal.
(emphasis added)). Indeed, a second attempt at removal is justified only when there has
been a substantial change in the nature of the instant case since it was last in this court.
Sys. Design, 2009 WL 3245813 at *1 (quoting One Sylvan, 889 F. Supp. at 64). As the
Seventh Circuit explained, multiple removals could even lead to sanctions if nothing of
significance changes between the first and second tries. Benson v. SI Handling Systems,
Inc., 188 F.3d 780, 492 (7th Cir. 1999).
Here, there has been no change in the nature of the case and no subsequent pleadings
or papers to provide a new basis for removal. In regards to CAFA, Archstone Communities
removal is based on the same facts (i.e., the declaration of Mr. Jenkins) that Archstone Long
Beachs failed removal was based on. The only substantive difference is that now Archstone
Communities is removing, rather than Archstone Long Beach. Archstone Communities fails

17
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
to cite any authority that such a tactic is permissible. Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 996 (noting
that the removing party has the burden to show that removal is proper).
4. Archstone Communities Waived Its Right to Remove by Not
Removing Within 30-Days of This Courts Previous Remand
Order.
Finally, even if Archstone Communities didnt waive its right to remove this case by
failing to remove within any of the above mentioned time periods, it still waived its right by
failing to remove within 30 days of this Courts previous order remanding this case back to
state court. On February 5, 2014, this Court issued a transmittal letter with a certified copy
of the remand order to Los Angeles County Superior Court, which automatically transferred
jurisdiction from federal court back to state court. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for the
Cent. Dist. of Ca., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (the event that divests the district court
of jurisdiction is the mailing of the certified copy of the order of remand to the clerk of the
state court); MacLeod v. Dalkon Shield Claimants Trust, 886 F. Supp. 16, 19 (D. Or. 1995)
(same). However, rather than removing immediately upon remand, Defendants chose to
wait until after the Ninth Circuit denied Archstone Long Beachs petition for permission to
appeal before taking a second try at federal jurisdiction by removing on May 6, 2014 using
Archstone Communities. This delay only furthers the fact that Archstone Communities has
repeatedly waived its right to remove this case to federal court.
B. Archstone Communities Data Points Are Not Supported by Competent
Proof.
Additionally, even if Archstone Communities didnt waive its right to remove (it did),
the second declaration of Chris Jenkins is unsupported by the underlying documents and
cannot be used to support jurisdiction. The Ninth Circuit has held that when a complaints
amount in controversy is unclear or ambiguous, the removing defendant has the burden of
proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the jurisdictional threshold is met.
Guglielmino v. McKee Food Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Sanchez v.
Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)); see, e.g., Abrego Abrego, 443

18
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
F.3d at 638. In order to satisfy its burden, a removing defendant is required to submit
competent proof. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567. Courts may consider summary-judgment-
type evidence relevant to the amount in controversy at the time of removal as well as
allegations in the complaint. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir.
2004). However, courts cannot base [their] jurisdiction on [a] [d]efendants speculation
and conjecture. Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 1002. Rather, the defendant must set forth the
underlying facts supporting each of its assertions that the amount in controversy exceeds
the statutory minimum. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (emphasis in original); see e.g., Garibay v.
Archstone Communities LLC, 539 Fed. Appx 763, 764 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding that a
removing defendant may not rely on speculation and conjecture to support removal under
the preponderance of the evidence standard).
Here, Chris Jenkins declaration states, without any supporting documentation, that
the class consists of 69,508 tenants, and that these tenants paid $21,564,452,000 for
apartment cleaning, painting and/or carpet cleaning or replacement and paid security
deposits in the amount of $34,592,486. Jenkins Decl. at 75. Because these figures are
unsupported, they are insufficient to prove jurisdiction.
For example, in Green v. Staples Contract & Commercial, Inc. No. CV08-7138
SVWJWJX, 2008 WL 5246051, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2008) the removing defendant
submitted a single declaration stating that he calculated that the number of workweeks in
the putative class is no less than 78,256.72. The court rejected the declaration because the
[d]efendant provid[ed] no explanation for how it reached this number. Thus, absent more
concrete evidence, it [was] nearly impossible to estimate with any certainty the actual
amount in controversy. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, in Trang Nguyen
v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. SACV 1101334 DDP (MLGx), 2012 WL 1956905, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
May 30, 2012), the court faulted the removing defendant for submitting a sole declaration
that was based on the data available to [the defendant], without any further explanations.
These two cases demonstrate that a removing defendant cannot simply rely on a conclusory
declaration that purports to provide information relevant to the amount in controversy;

19
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
rather, a defendant must provideas they always mustthe underlying facts supporting
the data used to calculate the amount in controversy. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 567 (emphasis in
original).
Like the declarations in Green and Trang Nguyen, Mr. J enkins declaration claims
that he determined class-size and security deposit data through undisclosed and unidentified
data. However, this data is neither attached to Archstone Communities removal papers,
nor described in any detail within Mr. Jenkins declaration. Archstone Communities didnt
even both providing a compilation of this data for this Courts review (despite repeatedly
being asked to do so by Plaintiffs). Worse yet, Mr. Jenkins is the Vice President of
Financial Planning for Equity Residential, which is not even a defendant in this case,
making him incompetent to testify about the records of Archstone Communities. As
explained in Green and Trang Nguyen, these deficiencies make it nearly impossible for the
Court to estimate the actual amount in controversy, making remand appropriate. Green,
2008 WL 5246051 at *4.
Archstone Communities failure to produce its actual business records and any detail
on how it derived its data points is particularly inexcusable since it, as the landlord, has
exclusive access to all the facts, records, and information necessary to support removal. See
Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 1002 (removing defendant is the only party with access to its . . .
records and must present these records to prove jurisdiction); Amoche v. Guarantee Trust
Life Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 41, 51 (1st Cir. 2009) (holding that in ruling on a motion to remand,
courts must consider which party has better access to the relevant information). The
evidence that Archstone Communities could have provided, but chose not to, is exactly the
kind of information needed to support removal. Instead, Archstone Communities asks that
Plaintiffs and the Court take its word that the undisclosed and unattached data relied upon
is complete and accurate. The Federal Rules of Evidence and CAFA, however, require far,
far more.
/ / / /
/ / / /

20
_____________________________________________________________________________
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
C. The Court Should Award Plaintiffs the Fees and Costs Associated with
Archstone Communities Frivolous Removal.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1447(c), a remand order may require payment of just costs
and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal. Courts
may award attorneys fees under section 1447(c) where the removing party lacked an
objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546
U.S. 132, 141 (2005) (emphasis added). As explained above, Archstone Communities lacks
an objectively reasonable basis for removal. It is merely re-removing this case, immediately
after this court already remanded it back to state court, because it is unhappy with the Court
prior decision. Accordingly, the Court should award Plaintiffs $12,501.16, which
represents all fees and costs incurred as a result of Archstone Communities frivolous second
removal. See Bickford Decl. at 5.
V. CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Archstone Communities waived its right to remove and
therefore Plaintiffs motion to remand should be granted. Additionally, Archstone
Communities lacked any objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Accordingly,
the Court should grant Plaintiffs motion to remand and award them $12,501.16 in
attorneys fees and costs.

Date: May 23, 2014 R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM

By: /s/ John M. Bickford
John M. Bickford
Attorneys for Plaintiff and the
Putative Class

Vagle V Archstone Communities Class Action PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vagle V Archstone Communities Class Action PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vagle V Archstone Communities Class Action PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

____________________________________________________________________________________

PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION TO REMAND

You might also like