{"id":475,"date":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=475"},"modified":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T12:00:00","slug":"jacobsen-henkel-cd-cal-misappropriation-likeness-removal-rejected-settlement-offer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=475","title":{"rendered":"Jacobsen v. Henkel Corp. \u2014 C.D. Cal. Holds Rejection of $75,001 Settlement Offer Triggered Removal Clock"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
Victoria Jacobsen v. Henkel Corporation<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
U.S. District Court \u2014 Central District of California<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-01-14<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
2:25-cv-10443-MWF<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Unreported \/ Non-Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Removal, amount in controversy, settlement offer, \u201cother paper,\u201d misappropriation of likeness, Section 3344<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

Victoria Jacobsen sued Henkel Corporation in Los Angeles County Superior Court, alleging common-law misappropriation of likeness and statutory misappropriation under California Civil Code \u00a7 3344 \u2014 the state right-of-publicity law that protects against unauthorized commercial use of a person\u2019s name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness. Her complaint asserted that Henkel had agreed to use her image for one year only, then continued to use it beyond the agreed period.<\/p>\n

Henkel offered to settle for $75,001 \u2014 exactly one dollar above the federal diversity threshold. Jacobsen rejected the offer. Henkel then removed the case to federal court within 30 days of that rejection, citing diversity jurisdiction. Jacobsen moved to remand, arguing both that removal was untimely (because the amount in controversy had been apparent from the face of the complaint long earlier) and that Henkel could not in any event prove the case was worth more than $75,000.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The court denied remand and pointedly noted that Jacobsen\u2019s two arguments were not just inconsistent but mutually exclusive \u2014 she could not simultaneously claim that the complaint plainly showed more than $75,000 was at stake (for timeliness purposes) and that no evidence supported a value above $75,000 (to defeat removal). The court treated the contradiction as the type of pleading \u201cgamesmanship\u201d Ninth Circuit law tries to discourage.<\/p>\n

On timeliness, the court applied the well-settled rule that the 30-day clock under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1446(b)(1) starts only when the amount in controversy is apparent \u201cfrom the four corners\u201d of the complaint. Defendants need only apply a \u201creasonable amount of intelligence\u201d by, for example, multiplying figures stated in a complaint \u2014 they do not need to extrapolate from vague damages categories or look to recoveries in other cases. Because Jacobsen\u2019s complaint included no dollar figures and gave no information about the value of the underlying agreement, the amount in controversy was not facially apparent and the 30-day clock never started from the complaint itself.<\/p>\n

On the substantive amount-in-controversy question, the court held that Jacobsen\u2019s rejection of the $75,001 settlement offer was an \u201cother paper\u201d under \u00a7 1446(b)(3) and was independently sufficient evidence of the value of her case. Settlement communications can serve as an \u201cother paper\u201d triggering removal, and the court rejected Jacobsen\u2019s effort to draw a distinction between settlement offers initiated by plaintiffs and those initiated by defendants. As another district court put it, by refusing the offer Jacobsen necessarily believed her case was worth more than $75,001 \u2014 otherwise she would have accepted. Jacobsen also failed to submit any contrary evidence (such as an affidavit) showing the amount in controversy was actually less than $75,000.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n