Paul Krakowski et al v. Hancock Park Rehabilitation Center LLC et al
Filing
17
Order REMANDING case to state court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and REMANDS the case to state court. Case number BC512020 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
#7/8/14 (09/09 and 10/07 hrg off)
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-5022 PSG (JEMx)
Date
Title
Paul Krakowski, et al. v. Hancock Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al.
Present:
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy Hernandez
Deputy Clerk
August 28, 2013
Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers) Order REMANDING case to state court
On July 12, 2013, Defendant Hancock Park Rehabilition Center, LLC (“Defendant”) filed
a notice of removal of a civil action brought by Plaintiff Paul Krakowski, by and through his
Successor in Interest, Ken Krawkowski, and Plaintiff Ken Krawkowski, individually
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”). See Dkt. # 1. On August 12, 2013, the Court notified Defendant that
its Notice of Removal was incomplete. See Dkt. # 10. Defendant filed a revised notice of
removal to correct the deficiency on August 13, 2013. See Dkt. # 11. After reviewing the
corrected Notice of Removal, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (observing that a court
is required to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction).
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If at any
time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991).
There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal
always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Geographic Expeditions, Inc.
v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). Indeed, the removal
statute is strictly construed against removal and if there is any doubt as to the propriety of
removal, the case must be remanded. See id.
When jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C § 1331, “a defendant may not [generally] remove
a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’
federal law.” Aetna Health Inc. V. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (emphasis in original). The
well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question be evident from the face of the plaintiff’s
complaint for federal question jurisdiction to exist. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
#7/8/14 (09/09 and 10/07 hrg off)
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-5022 PSG (JEMx)
Date
August 28, 2013
Title
Paul Krakowski, et al. v. Hancock Park Rehabilitation Center, LLC, et al.
386, 392 (1987). Additionally, courts do not consider anything alleged in anticipation or
avoidance of defenses the Defendant may interpose. Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76
(1914). Further, “a complaint alleging a violation of a federal statute as an element of a state
cause of action, when Congress has determined that there should be no private, federal cause of
action for the violation, does not state a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” Merrell Dow Pharm. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 817 (1986) (internal
quotations omitted).
Plaintiffs’ complaint brings a civil action under two California laws, Cal. Evid. Code §
1158 and Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1430(b). Compl., ¶ 8-15. No federal causes of action are
advanced. However, Defendant’s notice of removal asserts that removal is proper because
Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and statutory damages under Cal. Health & Safety Code § 1430
for Defendant’s alleged violations of 45 C.F.R. §§ 164 and 42 C.F.R. §483.10(b)(2). NOR, 2:2326. However, to the extent Defendant argues that federal question jurisdiction exists because the
Complaint makes reference to federal regulations, the Court notes that neither regulation confers
a private right of action. See Webb v. Smart Document Solutions, LLC, 499 F.3d 1078, 1083
(9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]here there is no federal private right of action, federal courts may not
entertain a claim that depends on the presence of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1331.”); see also Hubbs v. Alamao, 360 F. Supp. 2d 1073, 1075, n.1 (“45 C.F.R. § 164.504 was
promulgated pursuant to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996
(“HIPAA”), see 42 U.S.C. § 1320d-2, which creates no private right of action.”); Schneller v.
Crozer Chester Medical Center, 387 Fed.Appx. 289, 293 (3rd Cir. 2010) (“claims under 42
C.F.R. §[] 483.10...do not provide a basis for jurisdiction pursuant to § 1331 because they
merely set forth the requirements that a facility must meet in order to qualify to participate in
Medicare and Medicaid; they do not confer a private cause of action”).
There is also no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal court to exercise
diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity between the parties and the amount in
controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267
(1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Defendant’s notice of removal does not establish the citizenship of
the parties, all of whom appear from the record to . Therefore, diversity jurisdiction is also
lacking.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and
REMANDS the case to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
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?
