Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Reehan Malik sued Citibank, N.A., and Best Buy Co., Inc. in Kern County Superior Court on March 11, 2026. His complaint concerned a November 2018 purchase of $1,579.95 in household goods through an 18-month, interest-free Citibank/Best Buy promotional credit account. Malik alleged unauthorized charges and interest, withheld account statements, rejected billing disputes, and improper access to personal information belonging to him and his family. The complaint asserted 60 state and federal causes of action.
Among those claims, Malik alleged that Citibank violated the Electronic Fund Transfer Act, specifically 15 U.S.C. § 1693f, and sought statutory damages under § 1693m(a). His prayer for relief separately requested EFTA statutory damages and reserved all relief available under federal law. Citibank removed the action on June 12, 2026, invoking federal question jurisdiction. Its notice stated that Citibank was served on May 13 and that Best Buy consented to removal.
Malik moved to remand, arguing that federal law merely supplied background or standards for state claims, removal occurred one day late, Best Buy had not properly consented, and Citibank removed after its answer deadline to avoid default. He also said he did not learn of removal until June 15 because Citibank did not notify him by email. Citibank opposed the motion, and the court accepted Malik’s reply despite its untimeliness. The parties had consented to magistrate-judge jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1).
The Court’s Holding
The court held that the complaint established federal question jurisdiction. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a complaint must affirmatively allege a federal claim. Malik’s pleading did more than reference federal law as background: it expressly asserted an EFTA claim, alleged a violation of § 1693f, and sought statutory damages under § 1693m(a). The court explained that one federal claim is sufficient to support jurisdiction over a case containing both federal and state claims. Whether the state claims could survive without federal references did not change the express request for federal statutory relief, so the court did not address the complaint’s other federal claims.
The court also rejected the consent objection. Under Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., a removing defendant may establish another defendant’s consent through an averment in a notice of removal signed by an attorney of record; separate consent documents are unnecessary. Citibank’s notice expressly stated that Best Buy consented, and Citibank’s counsel signed it. The court additionally noted that the same counsel represented both defendants and Best Buy had not objected to removal.
Finally, the court found that Malik’s timeliness and default arguments shared the same calculation error: counting May 13, the service date, as day one. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a)(1)(A) and California Code of Civil Procedure § 12 exclude the triggering day. The 30-day removal period therefore ran from May 14 through June 12, making Citibank’s June 12 filing timely. Applying the parties’ 30-day response period produced the same June 12 answer deadline, not June 11. Malik’s later discovery of the filing did not alter its filing date, and he did not establish an attempt to avoid default. The motion to remand was denied.
Key Takeaways
- An expressly pleaded EFTA claim and request for statutory damages established federal question jurisdiction despite the plaintiff’s characterization of federal law as background.
- The court did not decide whether the complaint’s other federal claims independently supported jurisdiction.
- A signed removal notice’s express representation of a codefendant’s consent satisfied the consent requirement without a separate consent document.
- Excluding the May 13 service date made June 12 the final day of both the removal period and the response period applied by the court.
- The plaintiff’s June 15 awareness of removal did not change the June 12 filing date or make the removal untimely.
Why It Matters
The decision keeps Malik’s combined federal and state claims in the Eastern District of California rather than returning them to Kern County Superior Court. It applies the well-pleaded complaint rule to the complaint’s actual claims and requested relief, rather than accepting a plaintiff’s later description of federal statutes as incidental.
The ruling also provides a case-specific application of removal consent and deadline-computation rules. It distinguishes a signed attorney averment of consent from a separate consent filing and shows how excluding the service date can change both the timeliness analysis and an associated claim that removal was intended to avoid default.