Chinitz v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING CASE. The Clerk shall therefore remand this case to Santa Cruz County Superior Court and close the file. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 11/20/2017. (ejdlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

SAN JOSE DIVISION

7
8

RONALD CHINITZ, on behalf of himself
and all others similar situated,
Plaintiff,

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Case No. 5:17-cv-06515-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE

v.
EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS,
INC.,
Defendant.

13
14

The instant putative class action was removed to this court by Defendant Experian

15

Information Solutions, Inc. on the “grounds of federal question in that Plaintiff’s claims

16

substantially implicate the laws of the United States, and the Plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily

17

depends on resolution of substantial questions of federal law.” But after reviewing the Complaint,

18

the court was left with serious doubt that Plaintiff’s causes of action would, in fact, implicate a

19

substantial federal question and ordered Defendant show cause why the action should not be

20

summarily remanded. Dkt. No. 11. Defendant responded to the order by filing an amended

21

Notice of Removal. Dkt. No. 13. The court now examines that document to determine whether

22

Defendant has adequately established a basis for subject matter jurisdiction. See Henderson v.

23

Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428, 434 (2011) (“[F]ederal courts have an independent obligation to ensure

24

that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide

25

jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press.”); see also Snell v.

26

Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002) (“[A] court may raise the question of subject

27

matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.”). It

28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-06515-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE
1

1
2

still has not.
As the court previously noted, none of Plaintiff’s causes of action are created by federal

3

law; each arises under provisions of the California Civil Code and California Business and

4

Professions Code. And although a federal law is noted in the allegations, “the mere reference”

5

does not “convert a state law claim into a federal cause of action.” Easton v. Crossland Mortg.

6

Corp., 114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997); accord Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g

7

& Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005) (explaining that § 1331 “is invoked by and large by plaintiffs

8

pleading a cause of action created by federal law”) (“Grable”).

9

Moreover, the amended Notice of Removal does not make it any more apparent that
Plaintiff’s causes of action implicate significant federal issues, such that removal is condoned by

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Grable and another case in the same line of authority - Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v.

12

Thompson, 478 U.S. 804 (1986). Defendant was obligated to fit this case into the “special and

13

small category” embraced by Grable pursuant to the court’s instructions. Empire Healthchoice

14

Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 699 (2006). Those cases are properly identified by

15

answering the following question: “does a state law claim necessarily raise a stated federal issue,

16

actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any

17

congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibility.” Grable, 545 U.S. at

18

314. “Recast as elements, the proponent of a ‘substantial federal question’ must show: (1) that the

19

state law claim necessarily raises the federal issues identified, (2) that the federal issue is disputed

20

and substantial, and if (1) and (2) are established, then (3) that it is appropriate in the balance of

21

state and federal responsibility for the federal court to hear the claim.” Quildon v. Intuit, Inc., No.

22

5:12-cv-00859 EJD, 2012 WL 1902021, at *4 (N.D. Cal. May 25, 2012).

23

Defendant’s jurisdictional presentation fails. Defendant argues that determining Plaintiff’s

24

right to relief necessarily implicates the interpretation of a federal regulation, namely 12 C.F.R. §

25

1022.123, which as detailed in the Complaint merely provides a list of methods that can prove a

26

consumer’s identity. But it is not clear that any of Plaintiff’s causes of action “necessarily raise”

27

the interpretation of that regulation, as opposed to simply the application of that regulation. Here,

28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-06515-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE
2

1

Plaintiff’s allegations do not dispute the meaning of § 1022.123; instead, he actually

2

acknowledges its requirements and alleges he could not obtain a free credit report even when he

3

provided identification satisfying the federal standard.

4

If anything, the Complaint necessarily raises the interpretation of a state statute, California

5

Civil Code § 1785.15(c), and its “proper identification” standard. Such interpretation may be done

6

in reference to federal statutes and regulations, but such incidental reference is not enough to

7

support jurisdiction in federal court because the ultimate determination of Defendant’s liability

8

will be a matter of state law. See Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 424 (1994) (holding that federal

9

jurisdiction does not exist simply because federal is an “ingredient” of a state law claim).

10

Moreover, Defendant’s case citations are inapposite. Defendant has not cited in its

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

amended Notice of Removal an exclusive jurisdiction provision, as was discussed in Sparta

12

Surgical Corporation v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209 (1998).

13

Defendant also overlooks the key difference between Plaintiff’s causes of action and the state-law

14

unfair competition claims at issue in National Credit Reporting Association, Inc. v. Experian

15

Information Solutions, Inc., No. C04-01661 WHA, 2004 WL 1888769 (N.D. Cal. July 21, 2004),

16

and Brennan v. Southwest Airlines Company, 134 F.3d 1405 (1998). As opposed the California

17

Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act (“CCRAA”), the state’s Unfair Competition Law

18

(“UCL”), California Business and Professions Code § 172000 et. seq., is uniquely amenable to

19

removal under Grable since it “borrows” violations from other laws, which are sometimes federal,

20

and adopts them as violations of the UCL. See Cal-Tech Commc’ns, Inc. v. L.A. Cellular Tel.

21

Co., 20 Cal. 4th 163, 180 (1999).

22

Finally, there is no basis to invoke the artful pleading doctrine under these circumstances

23

when Plaintiff has validly brought claims under a state statute that is not supplanted by federal

24

law. See Hunter v. United Van Lines, 746 F.2d 635, 643 (9th Cir. 1984) (“[R]emoval is improper

25

when federal law simply displaces state law without replacing the state cause of action with a

26

federal one. When federal law displaces state law without supplanting it, a plaintiff cannot be

27

deemed to be attempting to avoid a federal cause of action.”). Here, the CCRAA and its federal

28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-06515-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE
3

1
2

counterpart, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, co-exist as separate statutory schemes.
Because Plaintiff’s causes of action are not created by federal law, and because Defendant

3

has not convincingly shown they arise under or raise a substantial issue of federal law, the court

4

still seriously doubts this action was properly removed. Given the “need for careful judgments

5

about the exercise of federal judicial power in an area of uncertain jurisdiction” (Merrell Dow, 478

6

U.S. at 814), the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Clerk

7

shall therefore remand this case to Santa Cruz County Superior Court and close the file.

8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 20, 2017
______________________________________
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Case No.: 5:17-cv-06515-EJD
ORDER REMANDING CASE
4