Miller v. Cate et al
Filing
47
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that 19 Plaintiff's Motion to Remand be DENIED re 1 Notice of Removal, signed by Magistrate Judge Gerald B. Cohn on 8/29/2011. Referred to Judge O'Neill. Objections to F&R due within thirty (30) days. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
REGINALD DARRELL MILLER,
11
Plaintiff,
v.
12
13
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
14
Defendants.
15
CASE NO.
1:11-cv-01111-LJO-GBC (PC)
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE
COURT
(ECF No. 19)
/ OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
16
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION
17
18
19
I.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiff Reginald Darrell Miller (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se in this
20
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff originally filed this action in state
21
22
court. On July 1, 2011, Defendant Giurbino removed it to federal court.1 (ECF No. 2.)
23
This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Complaint alleging violations of his Fifth and Fourteenth
24
Amendment rights by Defendants, among other claims under federal and state law. (ECF
25
26
27
1
Defendants Cate, Doyle, Allenby, Ahlin, Owens, Sreenivasan, McManus, and Suzuki all joined
in and consented to rem oval of the action to federal court. (ECF Nos. 5, 9, 13, & 27.)
1
1
No. 2, pp. 7-65)
2
3
Pending before the Court now is Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand Action to State Court
filed July 18, 2011. (ECF No. 19.) Defendants Cate, Giurbino, and Doyle filed their
4
5
Opposition to the motion on August 5, 2011 and Plaintiff filed his Reply August 18, 2011.
6
(ECF Nos. 30 & 42.)
7
II.
ARGUMENTS
8
Plaintiff’s Arguments
9
In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that the removal was untimely, that service of the
10
notice of removal was defective, and that there is no federal question.
11
12
Plaintiff argues that this action does not include any federal question which was the
13
basis for removal by Defendants. Plaintiff states that the action could not have originally
14
been filed in federal court because of a “lack of standing and an inability to establish the
15
legal threshold with regards to the RICO Act . . . .” (ECF No. 19, p. 3.) Plaintiff states the
16
he did not raise any federal issues related to either RICO or Section 1983 in his Complaint.
17
Plaintiff argues that the other Defendants have not joined in or consented to the
18
19
removal.
20
Plaintiff argues that Defendant Giurbino’s notice of removal was untimely pursuant
21
to the “first-served defendant” rule. Plaintiff states that the first served defendant was
22
Defendant Ahlin who was served on June 1, 2011. Plaintiff argues that the thirty day time
23
frame began that day and then ended on June 30, 2011, which made Defendant Giurbino’s
24
removal, filed July 1, 2011, untimely.
25
Plaintiff argues that the service by Defendants of documents was defective. Plaintiff
26
27
states that the proof of service states that the notice of removal was served on July 1,
2
1
2
3
2011. However, he states, the documents were not postmarked until July 5, 2011
Defendants’ Arguments
In their Opposition, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s allegations are misguided.
4
5
Specifically, Defendants contend that there are issues of federal law in this action, and
6
Defendants point out that all Defendants have consented to the removal. Defendants
7
highlight sections of Plaintiff’s Complaint where he makes claims under the Fifth and
8
Fourteenth Amendments and other federal laws including RICO and a claim for conspiracy.
9
As to Plaintiff’s argument that the removal was not unanimous, Defendants state
10
that that is no longer the case. All Defendants have since joined and consented to the
11
12
removal making the removal unanimous.
13
As to Plaintiff’s timeliness argument, Defendants state that Plaintiff’s calculation is
14
wrong as is he assertion that the first-served Defendant begins the clock. Defendant states
15
that Defendant Ahlin was first served on June 1, 2011, making the last day to remove July
16
1, 2011. Defendant Giurbino filed his Notice of Removal on July 1, 2011 which is within
17
the thirty day time frame. Defendants also note that the trend in case law is for the last-
18
served defendant to be able to remove, so long as consent is obtained from all served
19
20
defendants, citing Bailey v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 536 F.3d 1202, 1205-06 (11th
21
Cir. 2008) and Destfino v. Reiswig, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (2011 WL 182241, *3 (9th Cir.
22
2011)).
23
24
As to Plaintiff’s argument that service of the removal was defective because
Plaintiff’s envelope was post marked July 5, 2011, Defendants state that the proof of
25
service indicates that the envelope was placed in the law firm’s mailing system on July 1,
26
27
2011. Defendants argue that proof of service requires that the envelope be sent to the
3
1
mailroom for processing, not that the item is stamped immediately.
2
Plaintiff’s Reply
3
In his Reply, Plaintiff reiterates that he is not making any federal claims, but only
4
5
claims under the state constitution. Plaintiff also argues that this Court lacks federal
6
personal jurisdiction over this action. Plaintiff states that he is not a prisoner and, thus, it
7
appears that he is alleging that he is not subject to Section 1983.
8
III.
9
10
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), removal is appropriate for “any civil action brought
in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.
11
12
. . .” Removal statutes are strictly construed. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592
13
F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt
14
as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
15
1992). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.”
16
Harris v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting
17
Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir. 1986)). Removal is
18
19
proper where a plaintiff’s complaint, on its face, asserts claims created by federal law or
20
where a substantial federal issue of law exists. Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Thompson, 478
21
U.S. 804, 808-10 (1986).
22
As a general rule, all defendants in the state court action must join in the petition for
23
removal. United Computer Sys., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 762 (9th Cir. 2002).
24
Although there are certain exceptions to this rule of unanimity, “[w]here fewer than all the
25
defendants have joined in a removal action, the removing party has the burden under
26
27
section 1446(a) to explain affirmatively the absence of any co-defendants in the notice for
4
1
removal.”
2
superseded by statute on other grounds as recognized in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem.
3
Prize Frize v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999),
Co., 443 F.3d 676, 681 (9th Cir. 2006) (class action) (citations omitted); cf., Emrich v.
4
5
6
Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193, n. 1 (noting that nominal, unknown, fraudulently
joined, or improperly served defendants need not join in a petition for removal).
7
Furthermore, 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) requires that the notice of removal be filed “within
8
thirty days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of the
9
initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is
10
based . . . .”
11
12
IV.
ANALYSIS
13
Plaintiff argues that his Complaint does not contain any federal questions, that
14
Defendant Giurbino did not file a timely notice of removal, and that service of the notice of
15
removal was defective.
16
17
A.
Federal Question
Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Defendants violated his Fifth and Fourteenth
18
19
Amendment rights throughout the Complaint. He repeatedly alleges civil rights violations,
20
due process and equal protection violations, along with a Racketeer Influenced and
21
Corrupt Organizations Act claim and a conspiracy claim, among others. Plaintiff refers to
22
rights “bestowed upon [him] by the Constitution of both the State of California and the
23
United States of America.” (ECF No. 2, p. 30.) Clearly, Plaintiff’s Complaint sets forth
24
claims under both federal and state law. Because of the federal questions, the Court finds
25
26
that removal was appropriate.
27
5
1
B.
2
The Court next examines whether the removal was proper. Plaintiff argues that
3
Timeliness of Removal
Defendant Giurbino failed to file the notice of removal within the thirty day time frame.
4
5
6
Plaintiff argues that Defendant Ahlin, the first served defendant was served on June 1,
2011. Plaintiff then states that Defendants had until June 30, 2011 to file for removal.
7
In his Notice of Removal, filed, July 1, 2011, Defendant Giurbino stated that this
8
action was commenced in California Superior Court on May 11, 2011. (ECF No. 2, p. 1.)
9
He also stated that he was served with the summons and complaint on June 2, 2011.2 (Id.
10
pp. 1-2.) Thus, he stated, the action was removed within the thirty day time frame. (Id.)
11
12
28 U.S.C. § 1446 requires that all defendants join or consent to the notice of
13
removal. Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1233 (9th Cir. 1986). Moreover, the
14
defendant removing a state action to federal court must file the notice of removal within
15
thirty days of receiving “a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon
16
which [the] action or proceeding is based . . . .” Id. § 1446(b). The Ninth Circuit, along with
17
four others circuits, has adopted the “later-served defendant rule.” See Destfino v.
18
19
Reiswig, ___ F.3d ___, ___ (2011 WL 182241, *3 (9th Cir. 2011)). Under this rule, each
20
defendant has thirty days to remove a state action to federal court after it is brought into
21
the case, if there is a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Id. at *2. “A contrary rule
22
could deprive some defendants of a right to a federal forum because they were served too
23
late to exercise that right . . . .” Id.
24
Here, all Defendants have joined in and consented to the removal. And, regardless
25
26
27
2
Defendant Giurbino also stated that he believed that Defendants Cate and Doyle had not been
served yet. (ECF No. 2, p. 4.) They have since joined in this action. (ECF Nos. 5 & 9.)
6
1
of the first-served or last-served rule, Defendant Giurbino filed the notice of removal within
2
the thirty day time frame. Plaintiff miscalculated the dates. Thus, this argument must fail.
3
C.
Defective Service
4
Plaintiff argues that Defendants proof of service for the notice of removal was
5
6
defective because it states that it was served on July 1, 2011, but it was not postmarked
7
until July 5, 2011.
8
Plaintiff appears to be arguing that the difference in dates somehow makes the filing
9
improper. Plaintiff cites no authority for this proposition and the Court is aware of none that
10
support it. Pursuant to the record of filings, the notice was filed on July 1, 2011. (ECF No.
11
12
13
2.) The postmark date is of no importance.
V.
OBJECTIONS TO JOINDER
14
All Defendants have joined in and consented to Defendant Giurbino’s Notice of
15
Removal. (ECF Nos. 2, 5, 9, 13, & 27.) Plaintiff filed Objections to each notice of joinder
16
and consent to removal. (ECF Nos. 17, 20, 21, & 26.) In his Objections, Plaintiff makes
17
the exact same arguments as in his Motion to Remand which are dealt with above.
18
19
20
21
VI.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand
be DENIED.
22
These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District
23
Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within
24
thirty (30) days after being served with these Findings and Recommendation, the parties
25
26
may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned “Objections
27
7
1
to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” The parties are advised that failure
2
to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s
3
order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
7
Dated:
1j0bbc
August 29, 2011
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
8
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?