Ashu Sood, as Trustee of Sood Family Trust, Dated October 8, 2015, and Joginder and Chander Sood, as Trustees of Sood Family Trust, Dated September 17, 1992 v. Diamondback DTNM, LLC, and Dennis Ekstrom

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of New Mexico grants Plaintiffs’ motion to remand a commercial real-property lease dispute to state court. The court holds that Defendants’ removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1), rejecting their argument that the complaint did not provide clear and unequivocal notice of removability. The court distinguishes Tenth Circuit precedent concerning ambiguous federal-enclave jurisdiction allegations and concludes that Defendants’ amended notice could not cure the untimely removal.

Holdings

1. The removal was untimely because the thirty-day removal period began when defendants were served with the complaint and expired on August 29, 2025; defendants did not remove until September 4, 2025.
2. The complaint provided sufficient notice that the action was removable; defendants' later contention that the complaint did not clearly establish removability did not postpone the removal deadline.
3. Remand was required because defendants failed to timely remove the action.

Questions Presented

1. Whether defendants' September 4, 2025 notice of removal was timely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1).
2. Whether allegations that plaintiffs resided in California, rather than expressly alleging that they were domiciled or citizens there, failed to provide clear and unequivocal notice of removability and therefore postponed the commencement of the removal period under § 1446(b)(3).
3. Whether defendants' amended notice of removal could avoid remand by asserting that the original complaint did not clearly establish removability.

Disposition

remanded