Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01997/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-01997-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 28:1441nr Notice of Removal

---

1

18-CV-1997-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN DOE, a minor, by and through his 

guardian ad litem, Victoria IkerdSchreiter, Esq.,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATER DEI CATHOLIC HIGH 

SCHOOL OF SAN DIEGO, INC. and 

JOHN JOYNER,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18-CV-1997-CAB-NLS

ORDER REMANDING CASE AND 

AWARDING FEES TO PLAINTIFF

On August 27, 2018, Defendantsremoved this case from San Diego County Superior 

Court. On September 5, 2018, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why this case 

should not be remanded to state court. Defendants responded to that order in writing [Doc. 

Nos. 6, 8], and the Court held a hearing on September 13, 2018. For all of the reasons set 

forth in the order to show cause and stated by the Court at the hearing, the Court finds that 

the complaint does not state a federal claim or come within the “special and small category 

of cases” in which there is federal jurisdiction over a state law claim. Gunn v. Minton, 568 

U.S. 251, 258 (2013). The case was therefore improvidently removed and shall be 

remanded to state court.

Case 3:18-cv-01997-CAB-NLS Document 10 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18-CV-1997-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rule 11 Violation

The order to show cause also required defense counsel Maria C. Roberts and Michael 

W. Healy to show cause why they should not be sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 11 for misrepresenting to the Court that the operative first amended complaint

(“FAC”) in this case asserted a cause of action for “Intrusion into Private Affairs in 

violation of the federal Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”), when the 

FAC plainly asserts only two causes of action: (1) a claim for intrusion into private affairs 

and violation of right to privacy under California Education Code § 49079(e) and the 

California Constitution; and (2) public disclosure of private facts. [Doc. No. 1-2 at 1, 4-

5.] At the hearing, when confronted by the Court with the statements in the notice of 

removal, Ms. Roberts conceded that they were misrepresentations, and regardless, there is 

no other reasonable explanation. For this reason alone, the Court finds that the false 

statements in the notice of removal and in Mr. Healy’s declaration that the FAC asserted a 

cause of action for intrusion into private affairs in violation of FERPA were made in bad 

faith for the improper purpose of removing this case to federal court despite the absence of 

subject matter jurisdiction thereby causing unnecessary delay and needlessly increasing the 

cost of litigation, and that the statements lacked evidentiary support. Accordingly, the Ms. 

Roberts, Mr. Healy and the law firm of Greene & Roberts violated Rule 11(b)(1) and (3).

Attorney’s Fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

Relatedly, the Court also finds that Defendants lacked an objectively reasonable 

basis for seeking removal and are therefore liable for the fees incurred by Plaintiff as a 

result of the removal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Grancare, LLC v. Thrower by and through 

Mills, 889 F.3d 543 (9th Cir. 2018) (“Absent unusual circumstances, a court may award 

costs and attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an 

objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.”). In their response to the Court’s order 

and at the hearing, Defendants made the new argument that federal jurisdiction existed not 

because the FAC included a federal claim, which was the basis for subject matter 

jurisdiction stated in the notice of removal, but because the claim for intrusion into private 

Case 3:18-cv-01997-CAB-NLS Document 10 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18-CV-1997-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

affairs in violation of the California Constitution and California Education Code in the 

FAC necessarily raised the federal issue of whether Defendants’ conduct violated FERPA. 

See Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258. Putting aside that this argument was not the grounds for subject 

matter jurisdiction stated in the notice of removal, it is also objectively unreasonable in 

light of the allegations in the FAC. The FAC mentions FERPA just once and plainly does 

not contend that Defendants violated a right granted under the California Constitution 

because they violated FERPA. Indeed, Plaintiff likely did not make such an allegation or 

condition any claim on a FERPA violation because there is no private right of action under 

FERPA. Gonzaga Univ. v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002). In sum, the argument that a claim 

for violation of a right granted under the California Constitution necessarily raises a 

question of whether FERPA was violated is objectively unreasonable.

Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants’ alternative grounds for removal—(1) 

the contention in the notice of removal that the FAC stated a federal claim; and (2) the 

argument stated for the first time in response to the Court’s order to show cause that the 

intrusion into private affairs in violation of the California Constitution claim in the FAC is 

a state law claim that necessarily raised the issue of whether Defendants violated FERPA—

are both objectively unreasonable and warrant an award of attorney’s fees under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1447(c).

Amount of Sanctions/Fee Award

In response to the Court’s order to show cause, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration 

stating that immediately upon receiving the notice of removal, she contacted defense 

counsel objecting to the notice of removal. When defense counsel responded that it 

believed the removal was proper, Plaintiff’s counsel began working on a motion to remand. 

Upon receipt of the Court’s order to show cause, she ceased working on the motion. In her 

declaration, Plaintiff’s counsel states that she spent 6 hours working on the motion to 

remand, and 1.5 hours on her declaration to the Court, and that her hourly rate is $350. The 

Court finds these hours and rate to be reasonable and that Plaintiff is entitled to fees for 

this work notwithstanding that the motion was never filed because: (1) ceasing work on the 

Case 3:18-cv-01997-CAB-NLS Document 10 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18-CV-1997-CAB-NLS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

motion in light of the order to show cause was reasonable; and (2) if the motion to remand 

had been filed, it would have been granted and the Court would have awarded fees for the 

total cost of the motion.

Disposition

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. This case is REMANDED to San Diego County Superior Court;

2. The law firm of Greene & Roberts, and attorneys Maria C. Roberts and Michael 

W. Healy violated Rule 11 in the Notice of Removal and accompanying 

declaration by Mr. Healy;

3. Defendants did not have an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal of 

this lawsuit; and

4. Defendants, the law firm of Greene & Roberts, Maria C. Roberts, and Michael 

W. Healy shall be jointly and severally liable to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,625

for the fees Plaintiff incurred as a result of the notice of removal. To be clear, 

Defendants’ liability is premised on 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because they did not 

have an objectively reasonable basis for removal, and the liability of Greene & 

Roberts, Ms. Roberts, and Mr. Healy is a SANCTION for the violation of Rule 

11 described above.

It is SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 17, 2018

Case 3:18-cv-01997-CAB-NLS Document 10 Filed 09/17/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4