Thien Tran v. Anthony Nguyen

Filing 24

MINUTE ORDER (In Chambers): Order REMANDING Case to State Court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and the removal is procedurally deficient, Plaintiff's motion to remand 10 is GRANTED. The Court REMANDS this action to state court and CLOSES the federal case. Case Remanded to Superior Court of California Orange County, Case number 30-02014-00722873. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV17-967 PSG DFM

Title

Thien Tran v. Anthony Nguyen

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 23, 2017

Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy Hernandez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order REMANDING Case to State Court

Before the Court is Plaintiff Thien Tran’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to remand this case to state
court. Dkt. # 10. The Court finds this matter appropriate for decision without oral argument.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. Having considered the moving and opposing papers, the
Court GRANTS the motion and REMANDS the case to state court..
Defendant Anthony Nguyen (“Defendant”) filed a notice of removal in this Court on June
6, 2017. See Dkt. # 1 (“NOR”). The NOR purports to remove Plaintiff’s state court Request for
a Civil Harassment Restraining Order, filed in Orange County Superior Court on May 15, 2014.
See id. Based on the documents submitted in support of Plaintiff’s motion, this appears to be
Defendant’s fourth attempt to remove this action to federal court.1 As with all previous attempts,
the NOR is incomprehensible, and both procedurally and substantively deficient.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. See Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059,
1064 (2013). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, a defendant may remove a civil action from state court to
federal district court only if the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. See
Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997) (“The propriety of removal thus
depends on whether the case originally could have been filed in federal court.”). Generally,
subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
or on complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. For federal
question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal
1

Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b)(2), the Court may “judicially notice a fact that is
not subject to reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” All the documents attached to
Plaintiff’s motion are public documents that can be verified through public sources. See Dkt. #
10, Exs. 1-6. Moreover, the parties do not question the accuracy of the documents. Thus, the
Court takes judicial notice of these documents.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV17-967 PSG DFM

Date

Title

June 23, 2017

Thien Tran v. Anthony Nguyen

question to be evident from the face of the complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522
U.S. 470, 475 (1998). For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be
“complete” diversity between the parties and the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement
must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332
(a). The case shall be remanded to state court if at any time before final judgment it appears a
removing court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot.
League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991).
As noted in the previous orders remanding this case to state court, removal is improper
because there is no basis for federal jurisdiction. See Dkt. #10, Exs. 3-5. Plaintiff brought a
state court action in Orange County Superior Court seeking a restraining order against Defendant
pursuant to Cal. Code Civ. P. 527.6 on May 15, 2014. See NOR. This is purely a matter of state
law, and therefore, a federal question does not appear on the face of the Complaint. See Rivet,
522 U.S. at 475; 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s counterclaim asserting various violations of
federal law, see Dkt. # 3, does not cure the problem because “a federal counterclaim, even when
compulsory, does not establish ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.
49, 60 (2009). Further, because both Plaintiff and Defendant are California citizens, see NOR
12, there is no basis for invoking diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Additionally, the removal is procedurally deficient because Defendant has been on notice
of Plaintiff’s state court action since May of 2014. Therefore, more than 30 days have elapsed
since Defendant received notice of the Complaint, precluding removal under 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b)(1), and Defendant has not shown that there has been “an amended pleading, motion,
order, or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has
become removable” under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(3).
Accordingly, because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and the
removal is procedurally deficient, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED. The Court
REMANDS this action to state court and CLOSES the federal case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.2

2

Because this action is remanded to state court, Defendant’s motions to change venue,
Dkts. ## 11, 14, Defendant’s motion for order for having legal representative from military
disabilities and elder persons, Dkt. # 15, as well as applications for pro se litigants to
electronically file documents by cross-claimants Minh Nguyet Nguyen and Toan Thai, Dkts. ##
17, 18, are hereby RENDERED MOOT.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2