(PS) City of Sacramento v. Altstatt, No. 2:2016cv02449 - Document 9 (E.D. Cal. 2016)
Court Description: ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/29/16 ORDERING that Defendant's 11/4/16 Application for an Extension of time 5 is GRANTED nunc pro tunc; and the 12/7/16 hearing on Defendant's MOTION to DISMISS is VACATED; IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be summarily remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court and that this case be closed. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to U.S. District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to these F&Rs due within fourteen days. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CITY OF SACRAMENTO, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 v. No. 2:16-cv-2449 GEB DB PS ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS DANIEL J. ALTSTATT, 15 Defendant. 16 On October 13, 2016, defendant Daniel Altstatt filed a notice of removal of this action 17 18 from the Sacramento County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant Altstatt is proceeding pro 19 se. Accordingly, the matter has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by 20 Local Rule 302(c)(21). On October 18, 2016, the undersigned issued an order requiring defendant to show cause 21 22 in writing as to why this action should not be summarily remanded to the Sacramento County 23 Superior Court due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 3.) On November 4, 2016, 24 defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to file a motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 5.) On 25 November 16, 2016 defendant filed a motion to dismiss.1 (ECF No. 8.) 26 //// 27 28 1 Defendant noticed that motion for hearing before the undersigned on December 7, 2016, in violation of Local Rule 230 which requires not less than 28 days’ notice. 1 1 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry that must precede the adjudication of any case before 2 the district court. Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 3 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may adjudicate 4 only those cases authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 5 377 (1994); Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 136-37 (1992). “Federal courts are presumed 6 to lack jurisdiction, ‘unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.’” Casey v. Lewis, 7 4 F.3d 1516, 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quoting Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 8 546 (1986)). 9 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised by the court at any time during the 10 proceedings. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 11 1996). A federal court “ha[s] an independent obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] has 12 subject-matter jurisdiction.” Dittman v. California, 191 F.3d 1020, 1025 (9th Cir. 1999). It is the 13 obligation of the district court “to be alert to jurisdictional requirements.” Grupo Dataflux v. 14 Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004). Without jurisdiction, the district court 15 cannot decide the merits of a case or order any relief. See Morongo, 858 F.2d at 1380. 16 It is well established that the statutes governing removal jurisdiction must be “strictly 17 construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 18 1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)); see also Syngenta 19 Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Gov’t of Martinduque v. Placer 20 Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there 21 is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 22 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking 23 removal.’” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 1994) 24 (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)); see also Provincial 25 Gov’t of Martinduque, 582 F.3d at 1087. 26 The basic federal jurisdiction statutes are 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332, which confer 27 “federal question” and “diversity” jurisdiction, respectively. Federal jurisdiction may also be 28 conferred by federal statutes regulating specific subject matter. “[T]he existence of federal 2 1 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to 2 those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 3 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). District courts have diversity jurisdiction only over “all civil actions where the matter in 4 5 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and the action 6 is between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a 7 foreign state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens or subjects of a foreign state are 8 additional parties; and (4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different 9 States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “To demonstrate citizenship for diversity purposes a party must (a) be 10 a citizen of the United States, and (b) be domiciled in a state of the United States.” Lew v. Moss, 11 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986). “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between 12 the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re 13 Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008). 14 As the undersigned noted in the October 18, 2016 order to show cause, it appears that 15 plaintiff’s complaint asserts only state law causes of action. (ECF No. 1 at 18.) Moreover, 16 although the defendant alleges that he “is a ‘foreign state’” because he “sojourns upon the lands 17 within the lands within the territorial jurisdiction of the court,” it appears that the defendant and 18 plaintiff are both citizens of the State of California. (ECF No. 1 at 4, 20.) 19 The undersigned provided defendant with an opportunity to address this issue. Defendant 20 responded by filing a motion to dismiss. Therein, defendant asserts that “this court lacks 21 jurisdiction over the subject matter of the claim set forth in the complaint,” because the amount in 22 controversy is less than $75,000.2 (ECF No. 8 at 1.) 23 //// 24 //// 25 //// 26 //// 27 28 2 Defendant also argues that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant and asks that the complaint be dismiss with prejudice. (ECF No. 8 at 2.) 3 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. Defendant’s November 4, 2016 application for an extension of time (ECF No. 5) is 3 granted nunc pro tunc; and 4 2. The December 7, 2016 hearing of defendant’s motion to dismiss is vacated. 5 IT IS ALSO HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this matter be summarily remanded to the 6 7 Sacramento County Superior Court and that this case be closed. These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 8 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 9 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written 10 objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections to 11 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file 12 objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal 13 the District Court’s order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 14 Dated: November 29, 2016 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 DLB:6 DLB1\orders.pro se\sacramento2449.sj.f&rs 26 27 28 4
]]>
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.
