Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01221/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-01221-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LEANNE THOMPSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CITY OF WALNUT CREEK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01221-KAW 

ORDER GRANTING FEDERAL 

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

AND REMANDING CASE TO STATE 

COURT

Re: Dkt. No. 7

On February 5, 2016, Plaintiffs Leanne Thompson and Margaret Mary Thompson filed a 

Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus in Contra Costa County Superior Court against the 

City of Walnut Creek, and individuals, arising out of the City’s allegedly improper imposition of 

certain conditions in relation to a building permit issued to remodel Plaintiffs’ home. (Compl., 

Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1, Ex. 1.) Federal Emergency Management Agency (“FEMA”) was 

named as a real party in interest. On March 11, 2016, FEMA timely removed the lawsuit to 

federal court.

On March 18, 2016, FEMA filed a motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Def.’s Mot., Dkt. No. 7 at 1.) Specifically, FEMA argues that 

Plaintiffs have failed to identify any waiver of sovereign immunity, and have also failed to state 

any claims against FEMA. Id.

On April 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to dismiss, in which they 

acknowledge that, “at this time,” no claims are alleged against FEMA. (Pls.’ Opp’n, Dkt. No. 28.) 

Rather, Plaintiffs have “merely identified FEMA as a real party in interest” because they 

“anticipate that the City will argue that their actions resulted from instructions from FEMA and/or 

the City’s concern of the impact a different decision would have had on their eligibility and/or 

Case 4:16-cv-01221-KAW Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

Northern District of California

participation in FEMA’s insurance program.” (Pls.’ Opp’n at 2.) Plaintiffs further stated that they 

have no objection to dismissing FEMA without prejudice if the Court determines that FEMA is 

not required to be joined as a party under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19, and that Plaintiffs’ 

writ can proceed without them. Id. at 2-3.

With respect to Plaintiffs’ requests, the only issues before the undersigned are whether the 

Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this matter, and whether the petition fails to state a claim. 

There is no pending motion for joinder, nor is there a pending motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(7) for failure to join a party, so the Court declines to make a determination regarding 

FEMA’s indispensability under Rule 19. 

Accordingly, the Court deems this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument 

pursuant to Civil L.R. 7-1(b), and finds that the petition does not allege the exhaustion of 

administrative remedies, thereby divesting the Court of subject matter jurisdiction, nor are any 

claims asserted against FEMA, and GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) 

and 12(b)(6). Furthermore, given Plaintiffs’ concession that they are not asserting any claims 

against FEMA at this juncture, the dismissal is without prejudice.

Since the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case is REMANDED to state 

court for further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 2, 2016

__________________________________

KANDIS A. WESTMORE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:16-cv-01221-KAW Document 34 Filed 05/02/16 Page 2 of 2