Riverwalk Holdings, LTD v. Huu D. Ho et al
Filing
7
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Cormac J. Carney: Sua Sponte Order Remanding Case For Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court. Case number 30-02012-00556575. Mailed certified copy of minute order, docket sheet and CV 103. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (Attachments: # 1 cv 103) (twdb)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-01309-CJC(MRWx)
Date: August 28, 2013
Title: RIVERWALK HOLDINGS, LTD. V. HUU D. HO
PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Nancy Boehme
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING CASE
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Introduction and Background
Plaintiff Riverwalk Holdings, Ltd. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for common
counts against Defendant Huu D. Ho in Orange County Superior Court on March 22,
2012. (Dkt. No. 3 [“Not. of Removal”] at 7−9 [“Compl.”].) Mr. Ho removed the action
to this Court on August 27, 2013 on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. (Not. of
Removal.) Mr. Ho asserts that this Court has jurisdiction because (1) the Due Process
Clause of the United States Constitution guarantees to the defendant the right to be heard
and “the state court is not inclined to consider the defenses in a fair and impartial
manner,” (2) “[P]laintiff is involved in unfair and deceptive advertising and trade
practices as regulated under 15 USC § 52,” and (3) “[t]he disputes involved in this
complaint involve material violations of Title 15 USC § 1601 et seq.” (Not. of Removal
at 3.) Having considered Mr. Ho’s notice of removal, the Court concludes it lacks
jurisdiction and REMANDS this action to Orange County Superior Court.
Discussion
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court
if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(b). Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The defendant
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-01309-CJC(MRWx)
Date: August 28, 2013
Page 2
removing the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly
construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
removal in the first instance.”). Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists may be raised
by the Court sua sponte at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the
action.”).
Federal question jurisdiction is determined under the “well-pleaded complaint
rule,” under which “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, “[t]he rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or
she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. However,
“under the artful pleading doctrine, a plaintiff may not avoid federal jurisdiction by
‘omitting from the complaint federal law essential to his claim, or by casting in state law
terms a claim that can be made only under federal law.’ ” Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc. 80
F.3d 339, 344 (9th Cir. 1996) (quoting Olguin v. Inspiration Consol. Copper Co., 740
F.2d 1468, 1472 (9th Cir. 1984)).
Here, no federal question is apparent from the face of the Complaint. The sole
cause of action in the Complaint is a California state law cause of action for common
counts. Mr. Ho’s invocation of the federal Due Process Clause and his assertion that the
case involves practices regulated under 15 U.S.C. § 52 and involves material violations of
15 U.S.C. § 1601 et seq. is unavailing because such federal laws do not appear on the
face of the Complaint. Mr. Ho does not contend that Plaintiff’s common counts cause of
action depends in any way on federal law. Therefore, Mr. Ho has not met his burden of
showing that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action.
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
//
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 13-01309-CJC(MRWx)
Date: August 28, 2013
Page 3
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, this case is REMANDED to Orange County Superior
Court.
jcm
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
Initials of Deputy Clerk nkb
]]>
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?
