Hawaiian Ranchos Road Maintenance Corporation v. Schick et al

Filing 21

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 , 16 - Signed by CHIEF JUDGE DERRICK K. WAT SON 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. 14-4 at 3-5. Accordingly, the C ourt 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. 16, 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.
GORDON FREDRICK SCHICK, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 23-cv-00419-DKW-KJM
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 September 21, 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 Gordon Fredrick
Schick, Mathilda Noilani Mason, and unnamed Doe Defendants. More than a year
later, on October 13, 2023, Defendant Mason, proceeding pro se, removed the
action to this Court. Dkt. No. 1. That same day, Mason additionally filed an
application to proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs (“IFP
application”). Dkt. No. 3. Finally, on November 8, 2023, Hawaiian Ranchos Road
Maintenance Corporation filed a motion to remand the action to state court,

claiming Mason’s notice of removal was untimely and, as a matter of policy,
constituted undesirable forum shopping. Dkt. No. 16.
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 the parties are all
citizens of Hawaiʻi. See Dkt. No. 14-4 at 2. Further, although Defendant Mason
cites a slew of federal statutes in her 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 rule” provides
that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face
-2-

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. 14-4 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. 16, 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 Corp vs. Gordon Fredrick Schick, et al;
Civil No. 23-00419 DKW-KJM; 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-