Rebecca Castillo v. Sees Candies, Inc. et al
Filing
7
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number KC069283. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-4413 PA (PJWx)
Title
Rebecca Castillo v. See’s Candies, Inc.
Present: The Honorable
Date
June 16, 2017
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
V.R. Vallery
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
Before the Court is a Notice of Removal filed by defendant See’s Candies, Inc. (“Defendant”).
Defendant asserts that federal jurisdiction exists based on the existence of a federal question. See 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). Suits filed in state court may be removed to
federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The “burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction is on the party
seeking removal . . . .” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999). An
action may be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c). A “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
567 (9th Cir. 1992); Hofler v. Aetna US Healthcare of Cal., Inc., 296 F.3d 764, 767 (9th Cir. 2002)
(“The removal statute is ‘strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and any doubt must be resolved
in favor of remand.’” (quoting Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988))).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule,
“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus,
plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 318.
Defendant’s Notice of Removal asserts that “the Complaint alleges that it is a civil rights action
alleging discrimination claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.”
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 17-4413 PA (PJWx)
Date
Title
June 16, 2017
Rebecca Castillo v. See’s Candies, Inc.
(Notice of Removal, 1.) However, the Complaint alleges a single claim, for violation of Unruh Civil
Rights Act, Cal. Civil Code § 51 et seq.; Plaintiff has made no claim under the ADA. Thus, Plaintiff’s
sole claim arises exclusively under California law, not federal law. As a result, Defendant has failed to
meet its burden to establish that this Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court remands this action to Los Angeles Superior Court, case
number KC069283. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?