Mahamedi et al v. Chavez

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING CASE. The Clerk shall remand this case to Santa Clara County Superior Court and close the file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 6/13/2017. (ejdlc2S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/13/2017)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

12
13

ZURVAN MAHAMEDI, et al.,

Case No. 5:17-cv-03317-EJD

Plaintiffs,
14

ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.
15
16

MANUEL CHAVEZ,
Defendant.

17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION
This action was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court. Defendant Manuel Chavez

20
21

removed to this Court. This Court has an obligation to determine whether jurisdiction exists.

22

Mashiri v. Dep’t of Educ., 724 F.3d 1028, 1031 (9th Cir. 2013). This action will be remanded for

23

lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

24
25

II.

DISCUSSION
Removal jurisdiction is a creation of statute. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592

26

F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely

27

from the statutory authorization of Congress.”). Only those state-court actions that could have

28

1
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03317-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE

1

been originally filed in federal court may be removed. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,

2

392 (1987). An action may be removed to federal court if (1) the case presents a federal question

3

or (2) the case is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds

4

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b).
It is the removing defendant’s burden to establish federal jurisdiction, and courts must

5
6

strictly construe removal statutes against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,

7

566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be

8

remanded to state court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th

9

Cir. 2003).
This Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action because the complaint does not

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

indicate that the parties have diversity of citizenship, and Chavez has not suggested otherwise.
Nor does this Court have federal-question jurisdiction. In order to find a federal question,

12
13

or a claim arising under federal law, a court examines only the “well-pleaded” state-court

14

complaint. Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.

15

1996) (“[I]t must be clear from the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint that there is a

16

federal question.”). Here, the sole cause of action in the complaint is a state-law negligence claim.

17

Chavez argues that jurisdiction arises from his counterclaims under the federal Defend Trade

18

Secrets Act (Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 4), but federal jurisdiction may not rest upon a counterclaim. Vaden v.

19

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

20

III.

21
22

ORDER
Because this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action, the Clerk shall

remand this case to Santa Clara County Superior Court and close the file.

23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 13, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

26
27
28

2
Case No.: 5:17-cv-03317-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE