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)

Download PDF
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

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?