Johnson v. Johnson et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying as moot 4 Motion for mental examination; granting 6 Motion to Remand; granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (jsclc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/28/2014)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
RONALD JOHNSON,

7

Case No. 14-cv-02547-JSC

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
JAMES JOHNSON, et al.,

10

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

ORDER 1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS, 2) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
REMAND, AND 3) DISMISSING AS
MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A
MENTAL EXAMINATION
Re: Dkt. Nos. 1, 4, 6

13
14

Plaintiff Ronald Johnson originally filed this trust-related action against Defendants James

15

Johnson Sr., James Johnson Jr., and Jeanell Johnson in Alameda County Superior Court. Plaintiff

16

subsequently removed this action to federal court. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction

17

of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See Dkt. Nos. 7-9, 15.) Now

18

pending before the Court are Defendants’ motion to remand and Plaintiff’s motion for a mental

19

status examination.1 After carefully considering the parties’ submission, the Court concludes that

20

oral argument is unnecessary, see Civ. L.R. 7–1(b), GRANTS the motion to remand, and

21

DISMISSES as moot the motion for a mental examination.

22

DISCUSSION

23

The federal statute governing removal provides:

24

Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any
civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of
the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States
for the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff has also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis, which is GRANTED.

1

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). The fundamental problem with Plaintiff’s removal of this

2

action from state court is that only a defendant—not a plaintiff—is allowed to remove an action.

3

Because Section 1441 does not confer removal power on plaintiffs, Plaintiff’s removal of this case

4

was improper.

5

Even if Plaintiff was permitted to remove a state-court action—or, alternatively, if

6

Plaintiff sought to file this case as an original action—subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

7

claims is lacking. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires

8

complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Federal

9

subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil action to arise under the
constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. “Federal question jurisdiction exists only when

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

a federal question exists on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.” ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda,

12

2012 WL 2077311, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). “[A]n actual or anticipated defense” does not

13

confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). There is no diversity

14

jurisdiction because Plaintiff fails to allege complete diversity amongst the parties and an amount

15

in controversy in excess of $75,000. Nor is there federal question jurisdiction; Plaintiff’s removed

16

complaint alleges only state-law trust issues lacking a federal question.
CONCLUSION

17
18

For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ motion to remand is GRANTED. The Clerk is

19

ordered to REMAND this case to Alameda County Superior Court. Plaintiff’s motion for a mental

20

examination is accordingly DISMISSED as moot.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 28, 2014
______________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

25
26
27
28
2