McGuire v. U.S. Department of Justice et al

Filing 36

ORDER ORDER DENYING 12 PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REMAND (Docket No. 12) AND ADDRESSING DEFENDANTS 7 , 17 , 29 MOTIONS TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Claudia Wilken on 6/23/2011. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 JOHN PATRICK MCGUIRE, Plaintiff, 7 8 9 v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, ET AL., Defendant. 10 United States District Court For the Northern District of California No. C 11-02344 CW / 11 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (Docket No. 12) AND ADDRESSING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS (Docket Nos. 7, 17 & 29) 12 13 The United States, specially appearing for Defendant federal 14 agencies, officials and individuals, Defendant Merck Sharp & Dohme 15 Corp., formerly known as Merck & Co., Inc., and Defendants the City 16 of Santa Rosa and the Santa Rosa Police Department have moved to 17 dismiss Plaintiff John Patrick McGuire’s Complaint. 18 17 & 29. 19 County Superior Court. 20 remand is DENIED. 21 schedule for Defendants’ motions to dismiss and vacates the August 22 11, 2011 hearing date and case management conference. 23 I. Motion to Remand 24 Docket Nos. 7, Plaintiff has also moved to remand this action to Sonoma Docket No. 12. Plaintiff’s motion to In addition, the Court sets forth a briefing A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to 25 federal district court so long as the district court could have 26 exercised original jurisdiction over the matter. 27 § 1441(a). 28 28 U.S.C. Title 28 U.S.C. § 1447 provides that if at any time 1 before judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 2 matter jurisdiction over a case previously removed from state 3 court, the case must be remanded. 4 motion to remand, the scope of the removal statute must be strictly 5 construed. 6 1992). 7 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that 8 removal is proper." 9 should resolve doubts as to removability in favor of remanding the 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). On a See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. "The 'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction Id. (internal citation omitted). Courts United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 case to state court. 11 jurisdiction is determined by examining the face of the plaintiff’s 12 properly pleaded complaint. 13 386, 392 (1987). 14 See id. Ordinarily, federal question Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. In this case, in which Plaintiff has sued federal Defendants 15 for their official actions, the United States appropriately sought 16 removal of the action to federal district court pursuant to 28 17 U.S.C. § 1442(a). 18 civil action commenced in state court against the United States, 19 any agency thereof, or any officer or person acting under an 20 officer of the United States or of any agency thereof, when such a 21 defendant is sued in an official or individual capacity for any act 22 under color of law. 23 to consent to removal, and any alleged contract that he might have 24 with the Superior Court of Sonoma County, do not divest this Court 25 of its jurisdiction to consider the matter. 26 Medellin v. Texas, 552 U.S. 491 (2008), is unpersuasive because the 27 case does not address this court’s jurisdiction under section 28 Section 1442(a) authorizes the removal of a Id. Plaintiff’s disability, his unwillingness 2 Plaintiff’s cite to 1 1442(a), and does not otherwise establish that removal of this 2 action is improper. 3 II. Motions to Dismiss 4 Thus, Plaintiff’s motion to remand is DENIED. Plaintiff shall oppose Defendants’ motions to dismiss in a 5 single consolidated brief, not to exceed twenty-five pages, filed 6 within fourteen days from the date this Order issues. 7 limit for Plaintiff’s opposition is set at twenty-five pages 8 because Defendants’ motions to dismiss do not exceed this length. 9 Provided that Plaintiff meets the deadline to oppose, Defendants The page United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 may each submit a reply brief, none to exceed five pages, within a 11 week after Plaintiff has filed his opposition. 12 to oppose the motions by the deadline, Plaintiff will face 13 dismissal of his Complaint for failure to prosecute. 14 If Plaintiff fails The motions to dismiss will be decided on the papers. The 15 August 11, 2011 date for hearing and a case management conference 16 is VACATED. 17 date if necessary. 18 A case management conference will be reset for a later IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 20 21 Dated: 6/23/2011 CLAUDIA WILKEN United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 2 3 MCGUIRE et al, Case Number: CV11-02344 CW 4 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 5 v. 6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE et al, 7 Defendant. 8 9 United States District Court For the Northern District of California 10 11 12 / I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. That on June 23, 2011, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle located in the Clerk's office. 13 14 16 John Patrick McGuire 1407 Townview Avenue Apt.213 Santa Rosa, CA 95405 17 Dated: June 23, 2011 15 18 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk By: Nikki Riley, Deputy Clerk 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?