Leeyer v. Circle K Stores Incorporated

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
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Daniel M. Leeyer,
Plaintiff,
v.
Circle K Stores Incorporated,
Defendant.
No. CV-25-08061-PCT-DJH
ORDER
Defendant Circle K. Stores Inc. (“Defendant”) filed a Motion to Remand (Doc. 87)
on June 3, 2026. In his Response, pro se Plaintiff Daniel M. Leeyer (“Plaintiff”) stated
that he does not oppose remand; however, he requests that the Court award him his costs
and expenses incurred in this litigation and moot the pending motion for summary
judgment and Daubert motion. (Doc. 90 at 2–3). Defendant, in its Reply, argues that
Plaintiff is only entitled to costs incurred as a result of the improper removal. (Doc. 91
at 2).
Plaintiff originally filed this case in Mohave County Superior Court on February 19,
2025, due to a slip and fall that occurred at a Circle K gas station. (See Doc. 1-1 at 3–6).
Defendant then removed the case based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a),
claiming that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000.00 and complete diversity
existed. (Doc. 1 at ¶7). Specifically, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff is considered a
citizen of Washington, and Circle K is a citizen of Texas as it is incorporated and maintains
its principal place of business in Texas. (Id. at ¶¶ 9–10). However, Defendant’s counsel
Case 3:25-cv-08061-DJH Document 94 Filed 07/07/26 Page 1 of 3

- 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
“recently learned that Defendant’s principal place of business is in fact Tempe, Arizona,
and was Tempe, Arizona when the case was removed.” (Doc. 83 at 1).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and removal statutes are strictly
construed. District courts do have original jurisdiction over all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 and is between citizens of
different States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, “[a] civil action otherwise removable
solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a)…may not be removed if any
of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State
in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). “It is thus clear that the presence
of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal.” Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
for N. Dist. of Ca., 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004). Because Defendant is a citizen of
Arizona, the removal of this case to the United States District Court for the District of
Arizona was improper. Thus, this case will be remanded to Mohave County Superior
Court.
In doing so, the Court will not deny the pending dispositive motions. Instead, the
Court will remand these motions to the Mohave County Superior Court for resolution them.
The Court will, however, retain limited jurisdiction to resolve any dispute regarding the
costs and expenses Plaintiff has incurred as a result of this improper removal. Indeed, there
is no question that Defendant improperly removed this case, and the misrepresentation of
one’s own domicile is a troubling error. Section 1447(c) accounts for just costs and
expenses “incurred as a result of removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In his Response, Plaintiff
notes that he has sustained “approximately $14,000 in expert-retention costs together with
filing, copying, travel, lodging, and other litigation expenses.” (Doc. 90 at 3). This blanket
amount is not recoverable under § 1447(c). Plaintiff would have incurred expert fees
regardless of whether this case was litigated in state or federal court, and presumably also
incurred travel and lodging expenses, as both courts are located in Arizona. Baddie v.
Berkeley Farms, Inc., 64 F.3d 487, 490 (9th Cir. 1995) (“[O]ther fees and costs incurred in
federal court after a removal may be related only tenuously to the removal, as when they
Case 3:25-cv-08061-DJH Document 94 Filed 07/07/26 Page 2 of 3

- 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
replace similar fees and costs that would have been incurred in state court if the litigation
had proceeded there. Such fees and costs cannot be considered ‘incurred as a result of the
removal.’ ”). So, while the Court will allow Plaintiff (after a good faith meet and confer
with Defendant) to recoup his expenses associated with the improper removal, Plaintiff
must limit his request to those actually attributable to the removal.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Remand (Doc. 87) is GRANTED.
The Clerk shall take all necessary steps to remand this case, including all currently pending
motions (Docs. 83, 84), to the Mohave County Superior Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff must meet and confer in good faith
with Defendant regarding any costs and expenses associated with the improper removal
within fourteen (14) days of this Order. If no agreement is reached regarding those
alleged amounts, Plaintiff shall have until July 31, 2026, to file a motion for costs and
expenses associated with the improper removal. The Court will retain limited jurisdiction
to resolve any motion for costs and expenses that is filed by Plaintiff. If Plaintiff does not
file a motion for costs and expenses by July 31, 2026, the Clerk of Court is instructed to
terminate this matter without further order from the Court.
Dated this 6th day of July, 2026.
Honorable Diane J. Humetewa
United States District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-08061-DJH Document 94 Filed 07/07/26 Page 3 of 3