Limpin v. Ascendiun, Inc. et al

- 1 - 25cv2598
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MELCHOR KARL T. LIMPIN,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASCENDIUN, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 25-cv-2598-BAS-JLB
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND (ECF No. 2)
Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Melchor Karl T. Limpin’s motion to remand.
(ECF No. 2.) The Court finds Plaintiff’s motion suitable for determination on the papers
submitted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the
Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART the motion.
I. 	BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed a complaint and first amended complaint in state court. (ECF No. 1-
2.) Plaintiff brought several California state law claims and sued multiple defendants. (Id.)
Defendant SCAN Health Plan then filed a notice of removal, claiming federal question and
federal officer removal. (ECF No. 1); 28 U.S.C. § 1441; 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Defendant filed
the notice on September 25, 2025. (ECF No. 1.)
Case 3:25-cv-02598-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 4

- 2 - 25cv2598
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 relevant here, the notice of removal stated that Defendant was served with a
complaint on August 1, 2025. (Id. ¶ 1.) The notice further stated that Defendant received a
first amended complaint on August 27, 2025. (Id. ¶ 2.)
In response to the notice of removal, Plaintiff files a motion to remand. (ECF No.
2.) Part of Plaintiff’s motion argues that Defendant untimely removed. (Id.) Plaintiff
maintains that the thirty-day clock started to tick on August 1, 2025, establishing a deadline
of August 31, 2025. (Id.) Defendant’s brief, however, discusses only the date of August
27, 2025, making the deadline September 26, 2025, so that Defendant timely filed the
notice. (Opp’n 5:26, ECF No. 21.) Moreover, Defendant’s counsel submitted a declaration
in support of the opposition to remand, suggesting that Defendant was only served on
August 27, 2025, and the sheriff department’s documentation contained a mistake. (ECF
No. 21-1.)
To resolve this dispute, the Court ordered Defendant to show cause. (ECF No. 25.)
Specifically, the Court asked Defendant to resolve the discrepancy between the admitted
August 1 service date in the notice of removal and the August 27 service date in the
briefing. (Id.) The Court stated: “Defendants can show cause by submitting a declaration,
on penalty of perjury, regarding whether […] SCAN Health Plan received service of
process of the original complaint on August 1, 2025 and explaining why, if not, their notice
of remand lists a service date of August 1, 2025.” (Id.)
Defendant’s counsel responded to the Court’s Order through a declaration, stating:
“Defendant SCAN Health Plan (‘SCAN’) acknowledges that, on August 1, 2025, it
received limited documents purporting to relate to this action. However, the materials that
it received on that date did not include a full copy of the Complaint sufficient to constitute
service of the ‘initial pleading’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) or to allow
me, as SCAN’s legal counsel, to evaluate Plaintiff’s claims. Specifically, the information
that was received included the Summons, the cover page of the Complaint filed on
December 16, 2024, and a Notice of Case Assignment and Case Management Conference.”
(ECF No. 26 ¶ 4.) Plaintiff objected. (ECF No. 27.)
Case 3:25-cv-02598-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 4

- 3 - 25cv2598
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
Then, a couple weeks later, Defendant filed a supplemental declaration. (ECF No.
28.) Defendant’s attorney undertook an additional internal review of the materials in the
firm’s possession. (Id.) This supplemental declaration stated: “After conducting a further
investigation with SCAN, and reviewing archived service records and internal document
repositories, we were able to confirm that SCAN did, in fact, receive a full copy of the
Complaint on or about August 1, 2025.” (Id. ¶ 6.)
II. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Ordinarily, “[r]emoval statutes are to be strictly construed, and any doubts as to the
right of removal must be resolved in favor of remanding to state court.” Durham v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006).
“The notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 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. .
. .” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Regarding 28 U.S.C. § 1442 federal officer removal, a “federal
officer defendant’s thirty days to remove commence when the plaintiff discloses sufficient
facts for federal officer removal.” Durham, 445 F.3d at 1253.
III. 	ANALYSIS
Here, the supplemental declaration admits that Defendant was served with the
complaint on August 1, 2025. Defendant’s supplemental declaration further concedes that
the complaint provided sufficient notice. In other words, Defendant does not contest that
the complaint had sufficient information regarding the grounds for federal question and
federal officer removal. Given that Defendant’s counsel concedes service, the complaint
served on August 1, 2025, constitutes the initial pleading. Starting the clock on August 1,
2025, Defendant’s deadline to file a notice of removal was August 31, 2025. Thus, when
Defendant filed the notice on September 25, 2025, it was several weeks late. Seeing no
other argument from Defendant and according to the statutory requirements, the Court must
find the removal untimely.
Case 3:25-cv-02598-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 4

- 4 - 25cv2598
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
Finally, Plaintiff seeks sanctions for costs and actual expenses under Rule 11(c) and
28 U.S.C. 1447(c). (ECF No. 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff seeks reimbursement for expenses
incurred by himself and the sheriffs. (Id.) Finding no bad faith, the Court DENIES the
request for sanctions.
IV. 	CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion to remand. (ECF No. 2.) But the Court
DENIES sanctions or costs. (Id.) The Court remands the case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 30, 2026
Hon. Cynthia Bashant, Chief Judge
United States District Court
Case 3:25-cv-02598-BAS-JLB Document 29 Filed 01/30/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 4