Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Kaylin Marcus Thornton is an author who published five books through Amazon's Kindle Direct Publishing platform. He alleges that Amazon terminated his account on March 1, 2024, cutting off access to payments for his book sales, the ability to change prices, descriptions, or marketing materials, and access to sales reports and tax documents. He further alleges that Amazon kept selling his books without paying him, facilitated unauthorized third-party sales, and continued displaying his author page, and that efforts to restore the account between November 2024 and March 2025 failed.
Thornton sued in Sacramento Superior Court on May 26, 2026, pleading seven state-law claims, including breach of implied contract, unjust enrichment, conversion, and fraudulent inducement, and stating total damages of $180,500. Amazon.com Services LLC removed on June 25, 2026, invoking diversity jurisdiction and asserting that it is a citizen of Delaware and Washington while Thornton is a California citizen. Thornton moved to remand, arguing that last-day removal was forum shopping, that Sacramento was the only appropriate forum, and that California public policy made federal court inappropriate. Amazon separately moved to compel arbitration and dismiss under the Federal Arbitration Act, and Thornton filed no opposition or statement of non-opposition.
The Court’s Holding
Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson denied the motion to remand. Removal was proper: the notice was filed within thirty days of the May 26 state-court filing under 28 U.S.C. section 1446(b)(1), the parties were completely diverse, and the complaint's own $180,500 damages figure satisfied the amount in controversy. Thornton did not dispute that the court has jurisdiction.
The court rejected each of Thornton's arguments. He cited no authority, and the court knew of none, requiring remand because a defendant removed at the last permissible moment. His claim that Sacramento is the only suitable forum failed because the federal courthouse sits directly across from the Superior Court, and because forum non conveniens is a venue doctrine supporting dismissal rather than remand; the court did not understand him to seek dismissal. His argument that California public policy belongs in state court was unpersuasive because the court has jurisdiction and Amazon was within its statutory rights to remove.
The court also found that Thornton's motion cited cases that were fabrications or misrepresentations; for example, a citation presented as a Fifth Circuit removal decision actually concerned an immigration matter. It imposed no sanction but put him on notice that future filings containing misrepresentations may be sanctioned under Rule 11 and the court's inherent authority, whether or not generative AI is used. It did not rule on the arbitration motion. Instead, it said it would stay adjudication and ordered Thornton to show cause within fourteen days why the case should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute and comply with court orders, or else to file a response to the motion. Failure to respond will result in dismissal.
Key Takeaways
- Removal within the thirty-day window is timely, and the court found no authority requiring remand merely because the defendant waited until the end of that window.
- Forum non conveniens is a venue doctrine that can support dismissal but does not support remand of a removed case.
- A plaintiff's own stated damages of $180,500 in the operative complaint were enough to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
- Self-represented litigants remain bound by Rule 11, and the court warned that fabricated or misdescribed citations may be sanctioned in future filings regardless of whether generative AI was used.
- A party who ignores the response deadline under Local Rule 230(c) risks a show-cause order and possible dismissal for failure to prosecute.
Why It Matters
This is an unpublished order by a magistrate judge on removal and case management, so it carries no precedential weight and does not address the merits of Thornton's claims. It applies settled removal principles and shows that arguments based on timing, convenience, and state policy do not defeat jurisdiction that the statutes otherwise supply.
The order is not a final judgment. The motion to compel arbitration remains undecided, the case has not been dismissed, and no sanctions have been imposed. What happens next depends on whether Thornton responds within fourteen days; if he does not, dismissal is the stated consequence.