Preview
1 Victoria L. Weatherford (SBN 267499)
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, California 94111 ELECTRONICALLY
3 Telephone:
Facsimile:
415.659.2600
415.659.2601
FILED
Superior Court of California,
4 Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com County of San Francisco
10/05/2022
5 Dante A. Marinucci (Pro hac vice forthcoming) Clerk of the Court
Brittany N. Lockyer (Pro hac vice forthcoming) BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE
6 Deputy Clerk
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
7 Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
8 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
Emails: dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com
9 blockyer@bakerlaw.com
10 Alexis B. Cruz (SBN 312842)
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11 11601 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
12
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
Telephone: 310.820.8800
L OS A NGELE S
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
13 Email: acruz@bakerlaw.com
14 Attorneys for Defendant
ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO.
15
16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
18
19 JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA, Case No.: CGC-22-601752
individually and as successor in interest to
20 LORENZA MONDOC GLOVER, deceased, NOTICE TO THE COURT AND
ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL
21 Plaintiff, OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL
COURT
22 v.
23 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO.; and Action Filed: September 13, 2022
DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive,
24
Defendants.
25
26
27
28
NOTICE TO THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
1 TO THE COURT, TO PLAINTIFF, AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Notice of Removal of the above-entitled action was filed
3 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California on October 7, 2022. A copy of
4 the Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court is attached as Exhibit 1.
5
6 Dated: October 5, 2022 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
7
By: /s/ Victoria L. Weatherford
8 Victoria L. Weatherford
Dante A. Marinucci
9 Alexis B. Cruz
Brittany N. Lockyer
10
Attorneys for Defendant
11 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO.
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
12
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
L OS A NGELE S
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
NOTICE TO THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Exhibit 1
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 7
1 Victoria L. Weatherford (SBN 267499)
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
2 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100
San Francisco, California 94111
3 Telephone: 415.659.2600
Facsimile: 415.659.2601
4 Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com
5 Dante A. Marinucci (Pro hac vice forthcoming)
Brittany N. Lockyer (Pro hac vice forthcoming)
6 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
127 Public Square, Suite 2000
7 Cleveland, Ohio 44114
Telephone: (216) 621-0200
8 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740
Emails: dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com
9 blockyer@bakerlaw.com
10 Alexis B. Cruz (SBN 312842)
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
11 11601 Wilshire Boulevard
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
Los Angeles, California 90025
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
12 Telephone: 310.820.8800
S AN F RANCISCO
Facsimile: 310.820.8859
13 Email: acruz@bakerlaw.com
14 Attorneys for Defendant
ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO.
15
16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
18
19 JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA, ) CASE NO.:
individually and as successor in interest to
)
20 LORENZA MONDOC GLOVER, deceased, ) NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL
) ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
21 Plaintiff, )
) [Filed concurrently with Declaration of
22 v. ) Victoria L. Weatherford, Esq.; Request for
) Judicial Notice; Certification of Interested
23 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO., and ) Entities or Persons; and Notice of
DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, ) Pendency of Other Action or Proceeding]
24 )
Defendants. )
25 )
)
26 )
27
28
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 7
1 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT:
2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 and all other
3 applicable bases for removal, Defendant ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. (“Roseburg”),
4 sued as ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO., removes the action filed by Plaintiff JOSELITO
5 BERESO CANDASA, individually (“Plaintiff”) and as successor in interest to LORENZA
6 MONDOC GLOVER, deceased (“Decedent”), in the Superior Court of the State of California, in
7 and for the County of San Francisco, entitled Joselito Bereso Candasa, individually and as
8 successor in interest to Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased v. Roseburg Forest Products, Co. and
9 Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-601752 (“State Court Action”), to the United States
10 District Court for the Northern District of California (“Notice”).
11 JURISDICTION
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
12 1. This is a civil action over which this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction
S AN F RANCISCO
13 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 because it is a civil
14 action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of
15 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
16 VENUE
17 2. This Court is in the judicial district and division embracing the place where Plaintiff
18 filed the State Court Action and where it is pending. Specifically, the United States District Court
19 for the Northern District of California embraces San Francisco County, California, which is where
20 Plaintiff filed the State Court Action and where it is pending. Thus, this Court is the district court
21 to which this case is properly removed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)-(b) and 1446(a).
22 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
23 3. On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the State Court Action as an unlimited civil
24 action in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco.
25 4. As of the filing of this Notice, Plaintiff has not served the Summons, Complaint, or
26 related state court documents on Roseburg.
27 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), there are no copies of the process, pleadings, and
28 orders served on Roseburg in the State Court Action to attach hereto. For purposes of this Notice,
-2-
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 7
1 a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which Roseburg obtained from the state court on
2 or about September 14, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
3 6. Roseburg has not responded or otherwise appeared in the State Court Action.
4 7. Roseburg is informed and believes that Plaintiff has not amended his Complaint by
5 substituting the true names for any Doe Defendants.
6 TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL
7 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this removal is timely because Roseburg has not
8 been served—and is in any event filing this Notice within 30 days of learning of Plaintiff’s
9 Complaint and the resulting State Court Action.
10 DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP
11 9. Plaintiff’s Citizenship. For diversity purposes, a person is a “citizen” of the state
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
12 in which he or she is domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.
S AN F RANCISCO
13 1983). Residence is prima facie evidence of domicile. See, e.g., D.C. v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441,
14 455 (1941); State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994); Barbosa
15 v. Transport Drivers, Inc., No. ED CV15-1834-DMG (DTBx), 2015 WL 9272828 at *2 (C.D. Cal.
16 Dec. 18, 2015). And a defendant may rely on the presumption of continuing domicile. Motu Novu,
17 LLC v. Percival, No. C 16-06545 SBA, 2018 WL 3069316 at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2018).
18 10. As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff is an adult residing in San Francisco County.
19 (Complaint (“Compl.”), ¶ 8.) Roseburg is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff
20 intends to indefinitely remain living continuously in California, and that his domicile is presently
21 in California. See Motu Novu, LLC, 2018 WL 3069316 at *4. Accordingly, for purposes of
22 diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California.
23 11. Roseburg’s Citizenship. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), “a corporation shall be
24 deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has
25 its principal place of business.” The United States Supreme Court has concluded that a
26 corporation’s “principal place of business” is “where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and
27 coordinate the corporation’s activities,” or its “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77,
28 92-93 (2010). “[I]n practice,” a corporation’s “nerve center” should “normally be the place where
-3-
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 4 of 7
1 the corporation maintains its headquarters.” Id. at 93.
2 12. At the time Plaintiff filed the State Court Action, Roseburg was, and as of the filing
3 of this Notice still is, a corporation formed in and incorporated under the laws of the State of
4 Oregon. Pursuant to the Hertz nerve-center test, Roseburg’s principal place of business is
5 Springfield, Oregon. (See Declaration of Victoria L. Weatherford, Esq., ¶¶ 2-3; see also Request
6 for Judicial Notice, ¶¶ 1-2.) Roseburg’s corporate headquarters are located at 3660 Gateway Street,
7 Springfield, Oregon 97477. (See id.) Additionally, the majority of Roseburg’s officers direct,
8 control, and coordinate its corporate activities from that same location—3660 Gateway Street,
9 Springfield, Oregon 97477. (See id.) In fact, in his Complaint, Plaintiff concedes that Roseburg
10 “is a nonresident corporation that has not designated a principal place of business within
11 California.” (Compl., ¶ 8.) Accordingly, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Roseburg is a
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
12 citizen of Oregon.
S AN F RANCISCO
13 13. Doe Defendants. Although Plaintiff has also named fictitious Defendants, “[f]or
14 purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names
15 shall be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209,
16 1213 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding unnamed defendants are not required to join in a removal petition).
17 Thus, the existence of “Doe” Defendants does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction.
18 14. Complete Diversity Exists Here. Complete diversity of citizenship exists under 28
19 U.S.C. §§ 1332 because Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, on the one hand, and
20 Roseburg is a citizen of the State of Oregon, on the other.
21 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY
22 15. A defendant may remove a case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) on
23 the grounds that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, even
24 when the plaintiff fails to set forth any specific damage amount. Cohn v. PetsMart, Inc., 281 F.3d
25 837, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2002); Schneider v. Ford Motor Co., 441 F. Supp. 3d 909, 912 (N.D. Cal.
26 2020). The amount in controversy is determined by the operative complaint at the time of removal,
27 and encompasses all relief a court may grant if the plaintiff is victorious. Chavez v. JPMorgan
28 Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 414-415 (9th Cir. 2018).
-4-
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 5 of 7
1 16. A removing defendant need only establish, according to the lenient preponderance
2 of the evidence standard, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a),
3 1446(c)(2)(B); Cohn, 281 F.3d at 839. “As specified in § 1446(a), a defendant’s notice of removal
4 need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
5 threshold”; the notice need not contain evidentiary submissions. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating
6 Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014) (“Evidence establishing the amount is required by §
7 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.”).
8 Furthermore, it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to sua sponte remand a case back to
9 state court without first giving the removing defendant an opportunity to show that the jurisdictional
10 requirements are met. Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir.
11 2021).
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
12 17. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a cause of action for General Negligence in connection
S AN F RANCISCO
13 with the September 2, 2022 Mill Fire. (Compl., ¶ 10, pg. 4.) Plaintiff seeks recovery of an
14 unspecified amount for (i) general damage and (ii) “other” damage. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
15 18. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks wrongful death damages for “funeral and burial
16 expenses” and for the “depriv[ation] of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection,
17 affection, society, financial support, the loss of gifts and benefits, and moral support.”1 (Compl.,
18 pg. 4.)
19 19. Plaintiff also seeks survival damages for Decedent’s pain and suffering pursuant to
20 California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34. (Compl., pg. 4.)
21 20. Without conceding that Plaintiff is entitled to or could recover damages in the
22 amount or manner alleged, or at all, the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff’s claims exceeds
23 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.2
24
25
1
See 2019 NFDA General Price List Study Shows Funeral Costs Not Rising As Fast As Rate of
26 Inflation, National Funeral Directors Association (Oct. 4, 2022, at 12:45 PM),
https://nfda.org/news/media-center/nfda-news-releases/id/4797/2019-nfda-general-price-list-
27 study-shows-funeral-costs-not-rising-as-fast-as-rate-of-inflation.
2
This Notice does not concede and should not be construed as evidence that Roseburg violated
28 Plaintiff’s legal rights. The argument of potential damages presented here is based on the
allegations in the Complaint and solely for purposes of this Notice.
-5-
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 6 of 7
1 21. It is facially apparent from Plaintiff’s Complaint that the amount in controversy
2 exceeds $75,000.
3 22. A claim for wrongful death is sufficient on its face to establish the requisite amount-
4 in-controversy. See Kammerdiener v. Ford Motor Co., No. EDCV09-2180PSG(VBKX), 2010 WL
5 682297 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010) (“That Plaintiffs are seeking recovery for wrongful death is
6 sufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 on the face of the
7 Complaint.”); In re: Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 13MD2452 AJB (MDD), 2015 WL
8 11658714 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015) (“[C]laims for wrongful death are sufficient to establish
9 the requisite amount in controversy on the face of the complaint.”); Corbelle v. Sanyo Elec. Trading
10 Co., Ltd., No. C-03-1509 EMC at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2003) (“[A] complaint alleg[ing] wrongful
11 death or permanent disability or other such facts [ ] would clearly establish an amount in
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
12 controversy in excess of $75,000.”).
S AN F RANCISCO
13 23. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not demand a specific amount of damages and,
14 indeed, California practice does not permit him to demand a specific sum, see Cal. Code Civ. Proc.
15 § 425.10(b) (“[W]here an action is brought to recover actual or punitive damages for . . . wrongful
16 death, the amount demanded shall not be stated.”), Roseburg is entitled to plausibly “assert the
17 amount in controversy” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) and need not offer any supporting evidence.
18 See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 574 U.S. at 89 (“[A] defendant’s notice of removal need
19 include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional
20 threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446 (c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff
21 contests, or the court questions, the defendants.”).
22 24. Total Amount in Controversy. Based solely on the claims considered above, the
23 amount in controversy, conservatively estimated, is more than $75,000. This assertion as to the
24 amount in controversy satisfies the standard for removal. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co.,
25 574 U.S. at 89.
26 REMOVAL IS APPROPRIATE HERE
27 25. Because there is diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and
28 Roseburg, on the other hand, and because Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of the $75,000
-6-
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 7 of 7
1 jurisdictional threshold, Roseburg may remove this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and
2 1441(b).
3 CONSENT TO REMOVAL
4 26. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, all Defendants properly joined consent to the removal
5 of the State Court Action to this Court.
6 NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES
7 27. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, Roseburg is filing a Certification of Interested
8 Entities or Persons concurrently with this Notice.
9 28. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Roseburg has included its
10 Corporate Disclosure Statement in the Certification of Interested Entities or Persons concurrently
11 filed with this Notice.
B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP
A TTORNEYS AT L AW
12 NOTICE
S AN F RANCISCO
13 29. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Roseburg is providing written notice of the
14 filing of this Notice to Plaintiff and is filing a copy of this Notice with the Clerk of the Superior
15 Court of the State of California, in and for the county of San Francisco.
16
17 Dated: October 5, 2022 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP
18
By: /s/ Victoria L. Weatherford
19 Victoria L. Weatherford
Dante A. Marinucci
20 Alexis B. Cruz
Brittany N. Lockyer
21
Attorneys for Defendant
22 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO.
23
24
25
26
27
28
-7-
NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 11
EXHIBIT A
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 11
PLD-Pl-001
ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY
- Russell Reiner SBN: 84461
REINER, SLAUGHTER, MAINZER & FRANKEL, LLP
2851 Park Marina Drive, Suite 200
Redding, CA 96001
TELEPHONE NO: 530-241-1905 FAX NO. (Optional): 530-241-0622 ELECTRONICALLY
E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): rreiner@reinerslaughter.com
ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Joselito Bereso Candasa
FILED
Superior Court of California,
County of San Francisco
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street 09/13/2022
MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street Clerk of the Court
BY: LAURA SIMMONS
CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, 94102-4515
Deputy Clerk
BRANCH NAME: Civic Center Courthouse
PLAINTIFF: JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA , individually and as
successor in interest to Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased
DEFENDANT: ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO.; and
X
LJ DOES1 TO 10 , inclusive
COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death
□ AMENDED (Number):
Type (check all that apply):
0 MOTOR VEHICLE O OTHER (specify):
D Property Damage DX Wrongful Death
DX Personal Injury D Other Damages (specify):
Jurisdiction (check all that apply):
0 ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE
CASE NUMBER:
CGC-22-601752
Amount demanded D
does not exceed $10,000
D
exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000
0X ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000)
0 ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint
D from limited to unlimited
D from unlimited to limited
1. Plaintiff (name or names): Joselito Bereso Candasa, individually and as successor in interest to Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased
alleges causes of action against defendant (name or names): Roseburg Forest Products, Co. ; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive
2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 10
3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult
a. D except plaintiff (name):
(1) D a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) D an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) D a public entity (describe):
(4) D a minor D a n adult
(a) D for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) D other (specify):
(5) D other (specify):
b. D except plaintiff (name):
(1) D a corporation qualified to do business in California
(2) D an unincorporated entity (describe):
(3) D a public entity (describe):
(4) D a minor D a n adult
(a) D for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed
(b) D other (specify):
(5) D other (specify):
D Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3.
Page 1 of3
Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12
Judicial Council of California
COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property www.courtinfo.ca.gov
PLD-Pl-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007] Damage, Wrongful Death Westlaw Doc & Form Builder..
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 11
PLD-Pl-001
SHORT TITLE: CANDASA V. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO., CASE NUMBER:
et al.
4. D Plaintiff (name):
is doing business under the fictitious name (specify):
and has complied with the fictitious business name laws.
5. Each defendant named above is a natural person
a. X except defendant (name): Roseburg Forest Products
D c. D except defendant (name):
(1) D Co.
a business organization, form unknown (1) D a business organization, form unknown
D
(2) X a corporation (2) D a corporation
(3) D
an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) D an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) D a public entity (describe): (4) D a public entity (describe):
(5) D other (specify): (5) D other (specify):
b. D except defendant (name): d. D except defendant (name):
(1) D a business organization, form unknown (1) D a business organization, form unknown
(2) D a corporation (2) D a corporation
(3) D an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) D an unincorporated entity (describe):
(4) D a public entity (describe): (4) D a public entity (describe):
(5) D other (specify): (5) D other (specify):
D Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5.
6. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff.
a. DX Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1-5
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ were the agents or employees of other
named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment.
b. DX 6-10
Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ are persons whose capacities are unknown to
plaintiff.
7. D Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names):
8. This court is the proper court because
a. D at least one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area.
b. D the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area.
c. D injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area.
d. DX other (specify): Plaintiff resides in San Francisco County. Defendant Roseburg Forest Products,
Co. is a nonresident corporation that has not designated a principal place of business within
California.
9. D Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and
a. D has complied with applicable claims statutes, or
b. D is excused from complying because (specify):
PLD-Pl-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007] COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 2 of 3
Damage, Wrongful Death
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 4 of 11
PLD-Pl-001
SHORT TITLE: CANDASA V. ROSEBUR(:; roREST PRODUCTS CO. , CASE NUMBER:
ct al.
10. The fo llowing causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more
ca uses of action attached):
a. D
Motor Vehi cle
b. 00
General Negligence
c. D
Intentional Tort
d. D Products Liabi lity
e. D
Premises Liability
f. D Other (specify):
11. Pla intiff has suffered
a. D wage loss
b. D loss of use of property
c. D hospital and medical expenses
d. [KJ general damage
e. D property damage
f. D loss of earning capaci ty
g. 00 other damage (specify): J\s the successo r in inte rest to Decedent, Plai ntiff is enti tled lo seek
recovery for the pre-death pai n and suffe rin g experienced by Decedent prior lo her death.
Pla intiff add iti ona ll y seeks wrongfu l death damages.
12. 00 The damages claimed for wrongfu l death and the relationships of plaintiff lo the deceased are
a. 00 listed in At tachmen t 12.
b. D as follows:
13. The relief sought in th is complaint is with in the jurisdicti on of th is court.
14. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable: and for
a. (1) 00compensatory damages
(2) D punitive damages
The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)) :
( 1) 00acco rding to proo f
(2) D in the amount of:$
15. D The parag raphs of this complain t alleged on informa tion and bel ief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers):
Date: Se ptember 9, 2022
Ru sse lI Re iner
[TYPE OR PR INT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY)
PLO -Pl-00 I [Rev. Jan uary I. 2007] COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 3 of 3
Damage, Wrongful Death
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 5 of 11
PLD-Pl-001 (2)
SHORT TITLE: CANDASA V. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS
CO., et al.
FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION-General Negligence Page 4
-----
(number)
ATTACHMENT TO DX Complaint D Cross - Complaint
(Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.)
GN-1. Plaintiff (name): JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA, individually and as successor in interest to
Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased
alleges that defendant (name): ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO.; and
DX Does 1 to 10
was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant
negligently caused the damage to plaintiff
on (date): September 2, 2022
at (place): Weed, Siskiyou County, California
(description of reasons for liability):
On or about September 2, 2022, the Mill Fire destroyed over 100 homes in Siskiyou County and
killed at least two people, including Decedent. The Mill Fire began in Weed, California, in or around
a warehouse owned and operated by Defendants. Defendants negligently maintained and operated
the warehouse and adjacent property so as to create, cause, allow contribute to and assist in creating
a dangerous condition on the property.
The negligent operation and maintenance of its property was the proximate cause of the Mill Fire,
which escaped the bounds of the Roseburg Forest Products Co. property. As a result of the
negligence of Defendants, Decedent was exposed to and had to flee the fire causing her to suffer
personal injuries, serious emotional distress and ultimately death. Damages to the aforementioned
are in amounts which will the subject of proof at trial.
At all relevant times, Defendants and each of them knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should
have known, that they were not properly operating and maintaining their warehouse and adjacent
property such that it was likely to create and become a fire hazard and result in injury or death to
persons or property throughout the community. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions,
Decedent was killed and Plaintiff suffered injury. But for the actions of Defendants, Decedent would
not have been killed and Plaintiff would not have been injured.
Page 1 of 1
Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure 425.12
Judicial Council of California CAUSE OF ACTION-General Negligence www.courtinfo.ca.gov
PLD-Pl-001 (2) [Rev. January 1. 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form Builder·
Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 6 of 11
MC-025
~HORT TITLE, CANDASA V. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO CASE NUMBER:
., et al.
ATTACHMENT (Number): _ _ _12
_ _ __
(This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.)
RELATIONSHIP OF PLAINTIFF TO DECEASED
Plaintiff Joselito Bereso Candasa is the natural son of Decedent, Lorenza Mondoc Glover. Plaintiff is
the successor-in-interest to Decedent as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil
Procedure. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference is the
Declaration of Joselito Bereso Candasa per Section 377.32 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.
DAMAGES CLAIMED
This is a wrongful death and survivor action sounding in negligence against Defendants Roseburg
Forrest Products, Co. and Does 1 through 10. Damages sought are as follows:
1. WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES
As a direct, proximate, immediate, and foreseeable result of said conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff
Joselito Bereso Candasa has been deprived of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance,
protection, affection, society, financial support, the loss of gifts and benefits, and moral support from
his mother. As a further, direct, proximate, immediate and foreseeable result of the conduct of
defendants, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable funeral and burial expenses, the exact amount of which
will be subject to proof at the time of trial.
2. SURVIVAL DAMAGES
On information and belief, Decedent Lorenza Mondoc Glover died while trying to escape the Mill
Fire. On information and belief, she tried to escape via her vehicle, but there was too much smoke.
At or around the time of her death, Decedent was speaking to a neighbor on her cell phone, who had
called to check on her w
Preview
1 Victoria L. Weatherford (SBN 267499) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 2 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94111 ELECTRONICALLY 3 Telephone: Facsimile: 415.659.2600 415.659.2601 FILED Superior Court of California, 4 Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com County of San Francisco 10/05/2022 5 Dante A. Marinucci (Pro hac vice forthcoming) Clerk of the Court Brittany N. Lockyer (Pro hac vice forthcoming) BY: EDNALEEN ALEGRE 6 Deputy Clerk BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 7 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 8 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 Emails: dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com 9 blockyer@bakerlaw.com 10 Alexis B. Cruz (SBN 312842) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11 11601 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, California 90025 B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP 12 A TTORNEYS AT L AW Telephone: 310.820.8800 L OS A NGELE S Facsimile: 310.820.8859 13 Email: acruz@bakerlaw.com 14 Attorneys for Defendant ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. 15 16 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 17 FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 18 19 JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA, Case No.: CGC-22-601752 individually and as successor in interest to 20 LORENZA MONDOC GLOVER, deceased, NOTICE TO THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL 21 Plaintiff, OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 22 v. 23 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO.; and Action Filed: September 13, 2022 DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, 24 Defendants. 25 26 27 28 NOTICE TO THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 1 TO THE COURT, TO PLAINTIFF, AND HIS ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a Notice of Removal of the above-entitled action was filed 3 in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California on October 7, 2022. A copy of 4 the Notice of Removal of Civil Action to Federal Court is attached as Exhibit 1. 5 6 Dated: October 5, 2022 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 7 By: /s/ Victoria L. Weatherford 8 Victoria L. Weatherford Dante A. Marinucci 9 Alexis B. Cruz Brittany N. Lockyer 10 Attorneys for Defendant 11 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP 12 A TTORNEYS AT L AW L OS A NGELE S 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- NOTICE TO THE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Exhibit 1 Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 7 1 Victoria L. Weatherford (SBN 267499) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 2 600 Montgomery Street, Suite 3100 San Francisco, California 94111 3 Telephone: 415.659.2600 Facsimile: 415.659.2601 4 Email: vweatherford@bakerlaw.com 5 Dante A. Marinucci (Pro hac vice forthcoming) Brittany N. Lockyer (Pro hac vice forthcoming) 6 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 127 Public Square, Suite 2000 7 Cleveland, Ohio 44114 Telephone: (216) 621-0200 8 Facsimile: (216) 696-0740 Emails: dmarinucci@bakerlaw.com 9 blockyer@bakerlaw.com 10 Alexis B. Cruz (SBN 312842) BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 11 11601 Wilshire Boulevard B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP Los Angeles, California 90025 A TTORNEYS AT L AW 12 Telephone: 310.820.8800 S AN F RANCISCO Facsimile: 310.820.8859 13 Email: acruz@bakerlaw.com 14 Attorneys for Defendant ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. 15 16 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 18 19 JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA, ) CASE NO.: individually and as successor in interest to ) 20 LORENZA MONDOC GLOVER, deceased, ) NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ) ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT 21 Plaintiff, ) ) [Filed concurrently with Declaration of 22 v. ) Victoria L. Weatherford, Esq.; Request for ) Judicial Notice; Certification of Interested 23 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO., and ) Entities or Persons; and Notice of DOES 1 TO 10, inclusive, ) Pendency of Other Action or Proceeding] 24 ) Defendants. ) 25 ) ) 26 ) 27 28 NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 7 1 TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: 2 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 and all other 3 applicable bases for removal, Defendant ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. (“Roseburg”), 4 sued as ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO., removes the action filed by Plaintiff JOSELITO 5 BERESO CANDASA, individually (“Plaintiff”) and as successor in interest to LORENZA 6 MONDOC GLOVER, deceased (“Decedent”), in the Superior Court of the State of California, in 7 and for the County of San Francisco, entitled Joselito Bereso Candasa, individually and as 8 successor in interest to Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased v. Roseburg Forest Products, Co. and 9 Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. CGC-22-601752 (“State Court Action”), to the United States 10 District Court for the Northern District of California (“Notice”). 11 JURISDICTION B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP A TTORNEYS AT L AW 12 1. This is a civil action over which this Court has original subject matter jurisdiction S AN F RANCISCO 13 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446 because it is a civil 14 action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of 15 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 16 VENUE 17 2. This Court is in the judicial district and division embracing the place where Plaintiff 18 filed the State Court Action and where it is pending. Specifically, the United States District Court 19 for the Northern District of California embraces San Francisco County, California, which is where 20 Plaintiff filed the State Court Action and where it is pending. Thus, this Court is the district court 21 to which this case is properly removed. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a)-(b) and 1446(a). 22 PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 23 3. On September 13, 2022, Plaintiff filed the State Court Action as an unlimited civil 24 action in the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Francisco. 25 4. As of the filing of this Notice, Plaintiff has not served the Summons, Complaint, or 26 related state court documents on Roseburg. 27 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), there are no copies of the process, pleadings, and 28 orders served on Roseburg in the State Court Action to attach hereto. For purposes of this Notice, -2- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 7 1 a true and correct copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint, which Roseburg obtained from the state court on 2 or about September 14, 2022, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3 6. Roseburg has not responded or otherwise appeared in the State Court Action. 4 7. Roseburg is informed and believes that Plaintiff has not amended his Complaint by 5 substituting the true names for any Doe Defendants. 6 TIMELINESS OF REMOVAL 7 8. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), this removal is timely because Roseburg has not 8 been served—and is in any event filing this Notice within 30 days of learning of Plaintiff’s 9 Complaint and the resulting State Court Action. 10 DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP 11 9. Plaintiff’s Citizenship. For diversity purposes, a person is a “citizen” of the state B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP A TTORNEYS AT L AW 12 in which he or she is domiciled. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. S AN F RANCISCO 13 1983). Residence is prima facie evidence of domicile. See, e.g., D.C. v. Murphy, 314 U.S. 441, 14 455 (1941); State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v. Dyer, 19 F.3d 514, 520 (10th Cir. 1994); Barbosa 15 v. Transport Drivers, Inc., No. ED CV15-1834-DMG (DTBx), 2015 WL 9272828 at *2 (C.D. Cal. 16 Dec. 18, 2015). And a defendant may rely on the presumption of continuing domicile. Motu Novu, 17 LLC v. Percival, No. C 16-06545 SBA, 2018 WL 3069316 at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 7, 2018). 18 10. As alleged in the Complaint, Plaintiff is an adult residing in San Francisco County. 19 (Complaint (“Compl.”), ¶ 8.) Roseburg is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that Plaintiff 20 intends to indefinitely remain living continuously in California, and that his domicile is presently 21 in California. See Motu Novu, LLC, 2018 WL 3069316 at *4. Accordingly, for purposes of 22 diversity jurisdiction, Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California. 23 11. Roseburg’s Citizenship. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c), “a corporation shall be 24 deemed to be a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has 25 its principal place of business.” The United States Supreme Court has concluded that a 26 corporation’s “principal place of business” is “where a corporation’s officers direct, control, and 27 coordinate the corporation’s activities,” or its “nerve center.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77, 28 92-93 (2010). “[I]n practice,” a corporation’s “nerve center” should “normally be the place where -3- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 4 of 7 1 the corporation maintains its headquarters.” Id. at 93. 2 12. At the time Plaintiff filed the State Court Action, Roseburg was, and as of the filing 3 of this Notice still is, a corporation formed in and incorporated under the laws of the State of 4 Oregon. Pursuant to the Hertz nerve-center test, Roseburg’s principal place of business is 5 Springfield, Oregon. (See Declaration of Victoria L. Weatherford, Esq., ¶¶ 2-3; see also Request 6 for Judicial Notice, ¶¶ 1-2.) Roseburg’s corporate headquarters are located at 3660 Gateway Street, 7 Springfield, Oregon 97477. (See id.) Additionally, the majority of Roseburg’s officers direct, 8 control, and coordinate its corporate activities from that same location—3660 Gateway Street, 9 Springfield, Oregon 97477. (See id.) In fact, in his Complaint, Plaintiff concedes that Roseburg 10 “is a nonresident corporation that has not designated a principal place of business within 11 California.” (Compl., ¶ 8.) Accordingly, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Roseburg is a B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP A TTORNEYS AT L AW 12 citizen of Oregon. S AN F RANCISCO 13 13. Doe Defendants. Although Plaintiff has also named fictitious Defendants, “[f]or 14 purposes of removal under this chapter, the citizenship of defendants sued under fictitious names 15 shall be disregarded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 16 1213 (9th Cir. 1980) (finding unnamed defendants are not required to join in a removal petition). 17 Thus, the existence of “Doe” Defendants does not deprive this Court of jurisdiction. 18 14. Complete Diversity Exists Here. Complete diversity of citizenship exists under 28 19 U.S.C. §§ 1332 because Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California, on the one hand, and 20 Roseburg is a citizen of the State of Oregon, on the other. 21 AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY 22 15. A defendant may remove a case to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) on 23 the grounds that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, even 24 when the plaintiff fails to set forth any specific damage amount. Cohn v. PetsMart, Inc., 281 F.3d 25 837, 839-40 (9th Cir. 2002); Schneider v. Ford Motor Co., 441 F. Supp. 3d 909, 912 (N.D. Cal. 26 2020). The amount in controversy is determined by the operative complaint at the time of removal, 27 and encompasses all relief a court may grant if the plaintiff is victorious. Chavez v. JPMorgan 28 Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 414-415 (9th Cir. 2018). -4- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 5 of 7 1 16. A removing defendant need only establish, according to the lenient preponderance 2 of the evidence standard, that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 3 1446(c)(2)(B); Cohn, 281 F.3d at 839. “As specified in § 1446(a), a defendant’s notice of removal 4 need include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 5 threshold”; the notice need not contain evidentiary submissions. Dart Cherokee Basin Operating 6 Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014) (“Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 7 1446(c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff contests, or the court questions, the defendant’s allegation.”). 8 Furthermore, it is an abuse of discretion for a district court to sua sponte remand a case back to 9 state court without first giving the removing defendant an opportunity to show that the jurisdictional 10 requirements are met. Acad. of Country Music v. Cont’l Cas. Co., 991 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 11 2021). B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP A TTORNEYS AT L AW 12 17. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a cause of action for General Negligence in connection S AN F RANCISCO 13 with the September 2, 2022 Mill Fire. (Compl., ¶ 10, pg. 4.) Plaintiff seeks recovery of an 14 unspecified amount for (i) general damage and (ii) “other” damage. (Id. at ¶ 10.) 15 18. Specifically, Plaintiff seeks wrongful death damages for “funeral and burial 16 expenses” and for the “depriv[ation] of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, 17 affection, society, financial support, the loss of gifts and benefits, and moral support.”1 (Compl., 18 pg. 4.) 19 19. Plaintiff also seeks survival damages for Decedent’s pain and suffering pursuant to 20 California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.34. (Compl., pg. 4.) 21 20. Without conceding that Plaintiff is entitled to or could recover damages in the 22 amount or manner alleged, or at all, the amount placed in controversy by Plaintiff’s claims exceeds 23 $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.2 24 25 1 See 2019 NFDA General Price List Study Shows Funeral Costs Not Rising As Fast As Rate of 26 Inflation, National Funeral Directors Association (Oct. 4, 2022, at 12:45 PM), https://nfda.org/news/media-center/nfda-news-releases/id/4797/2019-nfda-general-price-list- 27 study-shows-funeral-costs-not-rising-as-fast-as-rate-of-inflation. 2 This Notice does not concede and should not be construed as evidence that Roseburg violated 28 Plaintiff’s legal rights. The argument of potential damages presented here is based on the allegations in the Complaint and solely for purposes of this Notice. -5- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 6 of 7 1 21. It is facially apparent from Plaintiff’s Complaint that the amount in controversy 2 exceeds $75,000. 3 22. A claim for wrongful death is sufficient on its face to establish the requisite amount- 4 in-controversy. See Kammerdiener v. Ford Motor Co., No. EDCV09-2180PSG(VBKX), 2010 WL 5 682297 at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2010) (“That Plaintiffs are seeking recovery for wrongful death is 6 sufficient to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 on the face of the 7 Complaint.”); In re: Incretin Mimetics Prods. Liab. Litig., No. 13MD2452 AJB (MDD), 2015 WL 8 11658714 at *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015) (“[C]laims for wrongful death are sufficient to establish 9 the requisite amount in controversy on the face of the complaint.”); Corbelle v. Sanyo Elec. Trading 10 Co., Ltd., No. C-03-1509 EMC at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2003) (“[A] complaint alleg[ing] wrongful 11 death or permanent disability or other such facts [ ] would clearly establish an amount in B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP A TTORNEYS AT L AW 12 controversy in excess of $75,000.”). S AN F RANCISCO 13 23. Because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not demand a specific amount of damages and, 14 indeed, California practice does not permit him to demand a specific sum, see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. 15 § 425.10(b) (“[W]here an action is brought to recover actual or punitive damages for . . . wrongful 16 death, the amount demanded shall not be stated.”), Roseburg is entitled to plausibly “assert the 17 amount in controversy” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) and need not offer any supporting evidence. 18 See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 574 U.S. at 89 (“[A] defendant’s notice of removal need 19 include only a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional 20 threshold. Evidence establishing the amount is required by § 1446 (c)(2)(B) only when the plaintiff 21 contests, or the court questions, the defendants.”). 22 24. Total Amount in Controversy. Based solely on the claims considered above, the 23 amount in controversy, conservatively estimated, is more than $75,000. This assertion as to the 24 amount in controversy satisfies the standard for removal. See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., 25 574 U.S. at 89. 26 REMOVAL IS APPROPRIATE HERE 27 25. Because there is diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff, on the one hand, and 28 Roseburg, on the other hand, and because Plaintiff seeks damages in excess of the $75,000 -6- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 7 of 7 1 jurisdictional threshold, Roseburg may remove this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 2 1441(b). 3 CONSENT TO REMOVAL 4 26. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, all Defendants properly joined consent to the removal 5 of the State Court Action to this Court. 6 NOTICE TO INTERESTED PARTIES 7 27. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 3-15, Roseburg is filing a Certification of Interested 8 Entities or Persons concurrently with this Notice. 9 28. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1, Roseburg has included its 10 Corporate Disclosure Statement in the Certification of Interested Entities or Persons concurrently 11 filed with this Notice. B AKER & H OSTE TLER LLP A TTORNEYS AT L AW 12 NOTICE S AN F RANCISCO 13 29. As required by 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), Roseburg is providing written notice of the 14 filing of this Notice to Plaintiff and is filing a copy of this Notice with the Clerk of the Superior 15 Court of the State of California, in and for the county of San Francisco. 16 17 Dated: October 5, 2022 BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP 18 By: /s/ Victoria L. Weatherford 19 Victoria L. Weatherford Dante A. Marinucci 20 Alexis B. Cruz Brittany N. Lockyer 21 Attorneys for Defendant 22 ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO. 23 24 25 26 27 28 -7- NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF CIVIL ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 1 of 11 EXHIBIT A Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 2 of 11 PLD-Pl-001 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, State Bar number, and address): FOR COURT USE ONLY - Russell Reiner SBN: 84461 REINER, SLAUGHTER, MAINZER & FRANKEL, LLP 2851 Park Marina Drive, Suite 200 Redding, CA 96001 TELEPHONE NO: 530-241-1905 FAX NO. (Optional): 530-241-0622 ELECTRONICALLY E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional): rreiner@reinerslaughter.com ATTORNEY FOR (Name): Joselito Bereso Candasa FILED Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO STREET ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street 09/13/2022 MAILING ADDRESS: 400 McAllister Street Clerk of the Court BY: LAURA SIMMONS CITY AND ZIP CODE: San Francisco, 94102-4515 Deputy Clerk BRANCH NAME: Civic Center Courthouse PLAINTIFF: JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA , individually and as successor in interest to Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased DEFENDANT: ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO.; and X LJ DOES1 TO 10 , inclusive COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Damage, Wrongful Death □ AMENDED (Number): Type (check all that apply): 0 MOTOR VEHICLE O OTHER (specify): D Property Damage DX Wrongful Death DX Personal Injury D Other Damages (specify): Jurisdiction (check all that apply): 0 ACTION IS A LIMITED CIVIL CASE CASE NUMBER: CGC-22-601752 Amount demanded D does not exceed $10,000 D exceeds $10,000, but does not exceed $25,000 0X ACTION IS AN UNLIMITED CIVIL CASE (exceeds $25,000) 0 ACTION IS RECLASSIFIED by this amended complaint D from limited to unlimited D from unlimited to limited 1. Plaintiff (name or names): Joselito Bereso Candasa, individually and as successor in interest to Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased alleges causes of action against defendant (name or names): Roseburg Forest Products, Co. ; and Does 1 through 10, inclusive 2. This pleading, including attachments and exhibits, consists of the following number of pages: 10 3. Each plaintiff named above is a competent adult a. D except plaintiff (name): (1) D a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) D an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) D a public entity (describe): (4) D a minor D a n adult (a) D for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (b) D other (specify): (5) D other (specify): b. D except plaintiff (name): (1) D a corporation qualified to do business in California (2) D an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) D a public entity (describe): (4) D a minor D a n adult (a) D for whom a guardian or conservator of the estate or a guardian ad litem has been appointed (b) D other (specify): (5) D other (specify): D Information about additional plaintiffs who are not competent adults is shown in Attachment 3. Page 1 of3 Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure, § 425.12 Judicial Council of California COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property www.courtinfo.ca.gov PLD-Pl-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007] Damage, Wrongful Death Westlaw Doc & Form Builder.. Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 3 of 11 PLD-Pl-001 SHORT TITLE: CANDASA V. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO., CASE NUMBER: et al. 4. D Plaintiff (name): is doing business under the fictitious name (specify): and has complied with the fictitious business name laws. 5. Each defendant named above is a natural person a. X except defendant (name): Roseburg Forest Products D c. D except defendant (name): (1) D Co. a business organization, form unknown (1) D a business organization, form unknown D (2) X a corporation (2) D a corporation (3) D an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) D an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) D a public entity (describe): (4) D a public entity (describe): (5) D other (specify): (5) D other (specify): b. D except defendant (name): d. D except defendant (name): (1) D a business organization, form unknown (1) D a business organization, form unknown (2) D a corporation (2) D a corporation (3) D an unincorporated entity (describe): (3) D an unincorporated entity (describe): (4) D a public entity (describe): (4) D a public entity (describe): (5) D other (specify): (5) D other (specify): D Information about additional defendants who are not natural persons is contained in Attachment 5. 6. The true names of defendants sued as Does are unknown to plaintiff. a. DX Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers): 1-5 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ were the agents or employees of other named defendants and acted within the scope of that agency or employment. b. DX 6-10 Doe defendants (specify Doe numbers):_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ are persons whose capacities are unknown to plaintiff. 7. D Defendants who are joined under Code of Civil Procedure section 382 are (names): 8. This court is the proper court because a. D at least one defendant now resides in its jurisdictional area. b. D the principal place of business of a defendant corporation or unincorporated association is in its jurisdictional area. c. D injury to person or damage to personal property occurred in its jurisdictional area. d. DX other (specify): Plaintiff resides in San Francisco County. Defendant Roseburg Forest Products, Co. is a nonresident corporation that has not designated a principal place of business within California. 9. D Plaintiff is required to comply with a claims statute, and a. D has complied with applicable claims statutes, or b. D is excused from complying because (specify): PLD-Pl-001 [Rev. January 1, 2007] COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 2 of 3 Damage, Wrongful Death Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 4 of 11 PLD-Pl-001 SHORT TITLE: CANDASA V. ROSEBUR(:; roREST PRODUCTS CO. , CASE NUMBER: ct al. 10. The fo llowing causes of action are attached and the statements above apply to each (each complaint must have one or more ca uses of action attached): a. D Motor Vehi cle b. 00 General Negligence c. D Intentional Tort d. D Products Liabi lity e. D Premises Liability f. D Other (specify): 11. Pla intiff has suffered a. D wage loss b. D loss of use of property c. D hospital and medical expenses d. [KJ general damage e. D property damage f. D loss of earning capaci ty g. 00 other damage (specify): J\s the successo r in inte rest to Decedent, Plai ntiff is enti tled lo seek recovery for the pre-death pai n and suffe rin g experienced by Decedent prior lo her death. Pla intiff add iti ona ll y seeks wrongfu l death damages. 12. 00 The damages claimed for wrongfu l death and the relationships of plaintiff lo the deceased are a. 00 listed in At tachmen t 12. b. D as follows: 13. The relief sought in th is complaint is with in the jurisdicti on of th is court. 14. Plaintiff prays for judgment for costs of suit; for such relief as is fair, just, and equitable: and for a. (1) 00compensatory damages (2) D punitive damages The amount of damages is (in cases for personal injury or wrongful death, you must check (1)) : ( 1) 00acco rding to proo f (2) D in the amount of:$ 15. D The parag raphs of this complain t alleged on informa tion and bel ief are as follows (specify paragraph numbers): Date: Se ptember 9, 2022 Ru sse lI Re iner [TYPE OR PR INT NAME) (SIGNATURE OF PLAINTIFF OR ATTORNEY) PLO -Pl-00 I [Rev. Jan uary I. 2007] COMPLAINT-Personal Injury, Property Page 3 of 3 Damage, Wrongful Death Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 5 of 11 PLD-Pl-001 (2) SHORT TITLE: CANDASA V. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO., et al. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION-General Negligence Page 4 ----- (number) ATTACHMENT TO DX Complaint D Cross - Complaint (Use a separate cause of action form for each cause of action.) GN-1. Plaintiff (name): JOSELITO BERESO CANDASA, individually and as successor in interest to Lorenza Mondoc Glover, deceased alleges that defendant (name): ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS, CO.; and DX Does 1 to 10 was the legal (proximate) cause of damages to plaintiff. By the following acts or omissions to act, defendant negligently caused the damage to plaintiff on (date): September 2, 2022 at (place): Weed, Siskiyou County, California (description of reasons for liability): On or about September 2, 2022, the Mill Fire destroyed over 100 homes in Siskiyou County and killed at least two people, including Decedent. The Mill Fire began in Weed, California, in or around a warehouse owned and operated by Defendants. Defendants negligently maintained and operated the warehouse and adjacent property so as to create, cause, allow contribute to and assist in creating a dangerous condition on the property. The negligent operation and maintenance of its property was the proximate cause of the Mill Fire, which escaped the bounds of the Roseburg Forest Products Co. property. As a result of the negligence of Defendants, Decedent was exposed to and had to flee the fire causing her to suffer personal injuries, serious emotional distress and ultimately death. Damages to the aforementioned are in amounts which will the subject of proof at trial. At all relevant times, Defendants and each of them knew or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known, that they were not properly operating and maintaining their warehouse and adjacent property such that it was likely to create and become a fire hazard and result in injury or death to persons or property throughout the community. As a proximate result of Defendants’ actions, Decedent was killed and Plaintiff suffered injury. But for the actions of Defendants, Decedent would not have been killed and Plaintiff would not have been injured. Page 1 of 1 Form Approved for Optional Use Code of Civil Procedure 425.12 Judicial Council of California CAUSE OF ACTION-General Negligence www.courtinfo.ca.gov PLD-Pl-001 (2) [Rev. January 1. 2007] Westlaw Doc & Form Builder· Case 3:22-cv-05778 Document 1-1 Filed 10/05/22 Page 6 of 11 MC-025 ~HORT TITLE, CANDASA V. ROSEBURG FOREST PRODUCTS CO CASE NUMBER: ., et al. ATTACHMENT (Number): _ _ _12 _ _ __ (This Attachment may be used with any Judicial Council form.) RELATIONSHIP OF PLAINTIFF TO DECEASED Plaintiff Joselito Bereso Candasa is the natural son of Decedent, Lorenza Mondoc Glover. Plaintiff is the successor-in-interest to Decedent as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 1 and incorporated herein by reference is the Declaration of Joselito Bereso Candasa per Section 377.32 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. DAMAGES CLAIMED This is a wrongful death and survivor action sounding in negligence against Defendants Roseburg Forrest Products, Co. and Does 1 through 10. Damages sought are as follows: 1. WRONGFUL DEATH DAMAGES As a direct, proximate, immediate, and foreseeable result of said conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff Joselito Bereso Candasa has been deprived of love, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, financial support, the loss of gifts and benefits, and moral support from his mother. As a further, direct, proximate, immediate and foreseeable result of the conduct of defendants, Plaintiff has incurred reasonable funeral and burial expenses, the exact amount of which will be subject to proof at the time of trial. 2. SURVIVAL DAMAGES On information and belief, Decedent Lorenza Mondoc Glover died while trying to escape the Mill Fire. On information and belief, she tried to escape via her vehicle, but there was too much smoke. At or around the time of her death, Decedent was speaking to a neighbor on her cell phone, who had called to check on her w