Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance Corporation v. Lopez et al

Filing 24

ORDER (1) REMANDING ACTION TO STATE CIRCUIT COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION; AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS AND MOTION TO REMAND re 3 , 23 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE DERRICK K. WATS ON on 11/13/2023. Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance Corporation's Complaint raises only two state law claims: (1) breach of obligation-damages; and (2) foreclosure. Dkt. No. 18-4 at 3-5. Accordingly, the Co urt lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over this case and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), REMANDS the same to the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawai'i. The IFP Application, Dkt. No. 3, and Motion for Remand, Dkt. No. 23, are therefore DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is instructed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of the Third Circuit Court, and then to CLOSE this case. (eta)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAI‘I
HAWAIIAN RANCHOS ROAD
MAINTENANCE CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MANUEL LOPEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 23-cv-00418-DKW-WRP
ORDER (1) REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE CIRCUIT
COURT FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION; AND (2)
DENYING AS MOOT
APPLICATION TO PROCEED
WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF
FEES OR COSTS AND MOTION
TO REMAND

On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance
Corporation filed a Complaint in the Third Circuit Court for the State of Hawaiʻi,
bringing breach of obligation and foreclosure claims against Manuel Lopez, Maria
Lopez, Stephana Prokschl (formerly Stephanie Hadley), William Gilroy, the
County of Hawaiʻi, Department of Finance, and unnamed Doe Defendants. More
than a year later, on October 13, 2023, Defendant Gilroy, proceeding pro se,
removed the action to this Court. Dkt. No. 1. That same day, Gilroy additionally
filed an application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs
(“IFP application”). Dkt. No. 3. Finally, on November 9, 2023, Hawaiian
Ranchos Road Maintenance Corporation filed a motion to remand the action to

state court, claiming Gilroy’s notice of removal was untimely and, as a matter of
policy, constituted undesirable forum shopping. Dkt. No. 23.
A defendant may only remove a civil action brought in state court if the
federal court would have original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Federal district courts generally have original, subject matter jurisdiction based
either on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or on the presentation of a
federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513
(2006). As removal statutes are “strictly construed,” the defendant seeking
removal “always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper” and “any
doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” MooreThomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009).
Here, review of the Complaint, notice of removal, and the record generally
reveals that this case must be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. As
an initial matter, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction because Hawaiian Ranchos
Road Maintenance Corporation, Gilroy, and the County of Hawaiʻi, Department of
Finance are all citizens of Hawaiʻi. See Dkt. No. 18-4 at 2. Further, although
Gilroy cites a slew of federal statutes in his notice of removal, see Dkt. No. 1 at 4–
7, the Court likewise lacks federal question jurisdiction as “[t]he presence or
absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint
rule,’” not by a defendant’s removal allegations. The “well-pleaded complaint
-2-

rule” provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance
Corporation’s Complaint raises only two state law claims: (1) breach of obligation
– damages; and (2) foreclosure. Dkt. No. 18-4 at 3–5. Accordingly, the Court
lacks original subject matter jurisdiction over this case 1 and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c), REMANDS the same to the Third Circuit Court for the State of
Hawaiʻi. The IFP Application, Dkt. No. 3, and Motion for Remand, Dkt. No. 23,
are therefore DENIED AS MOOT.
The Clerk is instructed to mail a certified copy of this Order to the Clerk of
the Third Circuit Court, and then to CLOSE this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 13, 2023 at Honolulu, Hawai‘i.
___________________________
Derrick K. Watson
Chief United States District Judge

Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance Corporation v. Manuel Lopez, et al; Civil
No. 23-00418 DKW-WRP; ORDER (1) REMANDING ACTION TO STATE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION;
AND (2) DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF FEES OR COSTS AND MOTION TO REMAND

1

The additional arguments supporting remand offered by Plaintiff in its Motion for Remand need
not be, and are not, addressed herein.
-3-

-4-