(PS) The People of the State of California v. Herman and Helen's Marina et al., No. 2:2016cv00803 - Document 5 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 4/22/16 ORDERING that this action is stayed pending resolution by the District Court of the herein findings and recommendations; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. Objections due within 14 days after being served with these findings and recommendations. (Becknal, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 No. 2:16-cv-0803 KJM CKD PS ORDER AND v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS HERMAN AND HELENS MARINA, et al., Defendants. 17 18 This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 19 construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 20 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 21 first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal 22 bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 23 (9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 24 be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 25 In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal 26 question jurisdiction because the causes of action fall under the Clean Water Act. Removal based 27 on federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a federal question is presented on the face of 28 the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 1 1 (1987). However, the exhibits attached to the removal petition establish the state court action 2 alleges claims only under state law. Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing 3 federal jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State 4 Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).1 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that this action is stayed pending resolution by the District Court of the herein findings and recommendations; and 7 8 IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San Joaquin. 9 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 10 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 11 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 12 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 13 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 14 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 15 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 16 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 17 Dated: April 22, 2016 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 18 19 20 4 cal-hermarina0803.rem 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 In addition, the notice of removal is defective in that all defendants who have been served have not joined in the petition for removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A). 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
