Arellano v. San Diego, City of et al
Filing
11
ORDER Remanding Case. The Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. In light of the Courts sua sponte Order remanding this action, the Court denies as moot Defendants' motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 3, 5, 8.) Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 1/9/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(CC: Superior Court of San Diego)(kcm)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
Raul Arellano,
Case No.: 16-CV-2536 JLS (KSC)
Plaintiff,
12
13
14
ORDER REMANDING CASE
v.
City of San Diego, et al.,
(ECF Nos. 1, 3, 5, 8)
Defendants.
15
16
17
Presently before the Court is Defendants City of El Cajon, City of San Diego, and
18
County of San Diego’s (collectively, “Defendants”) Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1.)
19
Also before the Court are various motions to dismiss filed by Defendants. (ECF Nos. 3, 5,
20
8.) For the following reasons the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of
21
California, County of San Diego.
BACKGROUND
22
23
Plaintiff brings this negligence and intentional tort action against Defendants.
24
(Compl. 51, ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff filed his Complaint in state court on April 28, 2016.
25
(Id.) On October 11, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal. (Not. of Removal, ECF
26
No. 1.) Defendants’ Civil Cover Sheet indicates that the basis for removal is federal
27
28
1
Pin citations refer to the CM/ECF numbers electronically stamped at the top of each page.
1
16-CV-2536 JLS (KSC)
1
2
question jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 1-1.)
LEGAL STANDARD
3
In cases “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States
4
have original jurisdiction,” defendants may remove the action to federal court. 28 U.S.C.
5
§ 1441(a). Section 1441 provides two bases for removal: diversity jurisdiction and federal
6
question jurisdiction. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction “where the amount in
7
controversy” exceeds $75,000, and the parties are of “diverse” state citizenship. 28 U.S.C.
8
§ 1332. Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising
9
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
10
The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing that federal
11
subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th
12
Cir. 1988). Moreover, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal
13
jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Boggs v. Lewis,
14
863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988)); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818
15
(9th Cir. 1985)). Therefore, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as
16
to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citing Libhart v. Santa
17
Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).
18
19
20
“[F]ederal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own
jurisdiction.” FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990).
ANALYSIS
21
Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, removal was improper.
22
Defendants remove on the basis of a federal question (see Not. of Removal 2, ECF No. 1),
23
but the Complaint does not present a federal question.
24
Federal question jurisdiction exists for “all civil actions arising under the
25
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C § 1331. Similarly, Article
26
III of the U.S. Constitution grants federal courts the power to hear “all cases, in law and
27
equity, arising under this Constitution, [and] the laws of the United States . . . .” Id.
28
Although the “arising under” language of § 1331 mirrors the language used in Article III,
2
16-CV-2536 JLS (KSC)
1
courts have construed § 1331 more narrowly. See Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v.
2
Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908).
3
The Supreme Court has interpreted “arising under” in Article III to grant federal
4
courts jurisdiction when federal law “forms an ingredient of the original cause.” Osborn
5
v. Bank of the United States, 22 U.S. 738, 822–25 (1824). For purposes of § 1331, however,
6
federal courts must apply the “well-pleaded complaint rule.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556
7
U.S. 49, 60 (2009). A cause of action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331, and
8
is therefore a basis for removal, “only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of
9
action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” Id. (quoting Mottley, 211 U.S. at 152).
10
Here, Plaintiff’s Complaint is premised on state law. As Defendants admit, Plaintiff
11
does not identify any federal code section that would support Defendants’ argument that
12
federal question jurisdiction exists. (Not. of Removal 2, ECF No. 1.) To the contrary,
13
Plaintiff’s Complaint simply identifies (1) general negligence and (2) intentional tort
14
causes of action. (Compl. 5, ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff also uses these terms in describing
15
his grievances against Defendants. (See, e.g., Compl. 15, ECF No. 1-2 (“This Agency’s
16
[sic] shall be held liable for Negligent Tort [a]nd its officers for Intentional Tort.”).) Even
17
Defendant City of San Diego, a Defendant supporting removal, admits as much. (ECF No.
18
3-1, at 2 n.1 (“While this lawsuit alleges a negligence cause of action, Case no.: 14-cv-
19
2404-JLS (KSC) alleges actions under 42 U.S.C. §1983.”) (emphasis added).)
20
In their Notice of Removal, Defendants insist that “[a]lthough plaintiff does not
21
specify the code section, plaintiff’s claim for violation of his constitutional rights in Mexico
22
would involve rights actionable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and would be a claim arising
23
under federal law,” thus concluding that “[b]ecause there is federal question jurisdiction,
24
the action is removable under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).” (Not. of Removal 2, ECF No. 1.) The
25
Court is not convinced. To be sure, Plaintiff does mention “constitutional rights” in his
26
Complaint. (Compl. 13, ECF No. 1-2.) However, there is no indication that Plaintiff is
27
invoking federal as opposed to state constitutional rights. The Court finds the latter to be
28
more probable, since Plaintiff filed this suit in state court and, as Defendants readily admit,
3
16-CV-2536 JLS (KSC)
1
Plaintiff already has a federal lawsuit asserting federal claims based on the same set of facts
2
pending before this Court. (See Not. of Removal 2, ECF No. 1 (“Further, there is an
3
essentially identical federal case already pending by this same plaintiff, and the same
4
defendants. It is styled Raul Arellano, Jr. v. San Diego County, et al., Case No. 14-cv-
5
2404-JLS (KSC).”).) And the Court has recently issued an Order on Defendants’ various
6
motions to dismiss in that case. See Case No. 14-cv-2404-JLS (KSC), ECF No. 58.
7
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not state a federal question.
8
And when it appears that, prior to final judgment, this Court lacks subject-matter
9
jurisdiction, the proper remedy is to remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. §1447(c).
10
CONCLUSION
11
In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction.
12
Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California,
13
County of San Diego. In light of the Court’s sua sponte Order remanding this action, the
14
Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motions to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 3, 5, 8.)
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 9, 2017
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
16-CV-2536 JLS (KSC)
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?