Ottovich et al v. Bautista
Filing
4
ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/1/2016 ORDERING that petitioner's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JACK OTTOVICH,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:16-cv-2745 MCE CKD PS
v.
LEO BAUTISTA,
15
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Defendant.
16
17
This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly
18
construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.
19
1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the
20
first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal
21
bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039
22
(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
23
be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
In this case, a removal petition was not even filed. Petitioners1 simply submitted some
24
25
state court documents and asserted that the state court action was removed. The state court
26
documents appear to relate to a probate matter that was finalized in 2004. Removal based on
27
28
1
It appears that petitioners are erroneously captioned on the court’s docket as plaintiffs in the
underlying action.
1
1
federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a federal question is presented on the face of the
2
plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
3
There is no federal question presented in the probate matter. It also appears that diversity
4
jurisdiction is lacking. Petitioners have failed to meet the burden of establishing federal
5
jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm
6
Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).
7
8
9
10
11
12
Petitioners have filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will
recommend remand of this action, the motion will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners’ motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded
to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.
13
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
14
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
15
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
16
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
17
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
18
shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised
19
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
20
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
21
Dated: December 1, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
22
23
24
4 ottovich2745.ifp.rem
25
26
27
28
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?