Sato et al v. World Savings Bank et al

Filing 17

ORDER REMANDING CASE.. Signed by Judge Breyer on May 5, 2009. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/5/2009)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AKIRA SATO, TAMAE SATO, Plaintiffs, v. WORLD SAVINGS BANK et al., Defendants. / No. C 09-01559 CRB ORDER OF REMAND Now pending before the Court is defendants' Notice of Removal. Courts in the Ninth Circuit "strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Id. Defendants, as the removing parties, bear the burden of establishing that removal was proper. See id. Defendants have not met their burden. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar, Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Plaintiff's counsel's deposition statement is not part of the complaint; the operative complaint includes only state law questions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Accordingly, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and therefore REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the City and County of San Francisco. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 5, 2009 CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE G:\CRBALL\2009\1559\orderofremand2.wpd 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?