(PS) Ottovich et al v. Bautista, No. 2:2016cv02745 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER and FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 12/1/2016 ORDERING that petitioner's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED without prejudice. IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England Jr. Objections to F&R due within 14 days. (Zignago, K.)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JACK OTTOVICH, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:16-cv-2745 MCE CKD PS v. LEO BAUTISTA, 15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. 16 17 This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly 18 construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 19 1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 20 first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal 21 bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039 22 (9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 23 be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). In this case, a removal petition was not even filed. Petitioners1 simply submitted some 24 25 state court documents and asserted that the state court action was removed. The state court 26 documents appear to relate to a probate matter that was finalized in 2004. Removal based on 27 28 1 It appears that petitioners are erroneously captioned on the court’s docket as plaintiffs in the underlying action. 1 1 federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 2 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 3 There is no federal question presented in the probate matter. It also appears that diversity 4 jurisdiction is lacking. Petitioners have failed to meet the burden of establishing federal 5 jurisdiction and the matter should therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm 6 Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997). 7 8 9 10 11 12 Petitioners have filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will recommend remand of this action, the motion will be denied without prejudice. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that petitioners’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 18 shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 19 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 20 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 21 Dated: December 1, 2016 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 4 ottovich2745.ifp.rem 25 26 27 28 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.