Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00313/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-00313-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 480
Nature of Suit: Consumer Credit
Cause of Action: 15:1692 Fair Debt Collection Act

---

1

3:17-cv-0313-CAB-(JLB)

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

RUSSEL SMITH, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

v.

HUNT & HENRIQUES, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No.: 3:17-cv-0313-CAB-(JLB)

ORDER OF REMAND

Upon review of Defendant’s response to the Court Order to Show Cause, the Court 

is still not satisfied that it has jurisdiction over this dispute and therefore remands this case.

On December 12, 2016, Plaintiff originally filed suit in the District Court and was 

assigned Case Number 3:16-cv-03048-CAB-JLB (the “2016 Action”). Concerned that it 

lacked jurisdiction to hear the matter this Court issued an Order to Show Cause why the 

case should not be dismissed. [Doc. No. 4 in 3:16-cv-3048-CAB-JLB.] The deadline to 

respond to the order passed without Plaintiff filing a response and the Court dismissed the 

action without prejudice on January 4, 2017. [Doc. No. 7 in 3:16-cv-3048-CAB-JLB.]

On January 10, 2017, Plaintiff filed a complaint against Defendant in the Superior 

Court of the State of California. The state court complaint contains identical claims 

under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C § 1692 et seq. and the 

Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“RFDCPA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1788 et seq.

Case 3:17-cv-00313-CAB-JLB Document 23 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

3:17-cv-0313-CAB-(JLB)

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

as those asserted in the 2016 Action. On February 16, 2017 Defendant removed the state 

court action to this Court. [Doc. No. 1 in 3:17-cv-0313-CAB-JLB.] In its notice of removal 

Defendant attested that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter.

On March 10, 2017, citing the same jurisdictional concerns it had in the 2016 case, 

the Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Defendant as to why the case should not be 

remanded. [Doc. No. 12.] On March 24, 2017, Defendant filed its response to the order 

to show cause. [Doc. No. 20.] As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has not filed a response. 

A defendant may remove any civil action from state court to federal district court if 

the district court has original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The 

party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.” 

Etheridge v .Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988) (citation omitted). 

See also Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 

2009) (the burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party 

invoking removal). But, removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) still leaves the district court 

with the “ultimate responsibility to ensure jurisdiction lies” with it. Polo v. Innoventions 

Int’l, LLC, 833 F.3d 1193, 1196 (9th Cir. 2016) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, 

Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). 

If federal jurisdiction is absent from the commencement of a case, [a case] is not 

“properly removed” – and therefore need not “stay [] removed.”” Polo 833 F.3d at 1197 

(citing United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv. 

Workers Int’l Union v. Shell Oil Co., 602 F.3d 1087, 1091, 1092 n.3 (9th Cir. 2010)). See 

also 28 U.S.C § 1447(c)1; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996) (doubts 

as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of 

 

1

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) specifically provides that “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the 

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

Case 3:17-cv-00313-CAB-JLB Document 23 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

3:17-cv-0313-CAB-(JLB)

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

remand). Remand is the correct remedy when subject matter jurisdiction is absent because 

“[s]tate courts are not bound by the constraints of Article III.” Polo, 833 F.3d at 1196.2

In its response, Defendant takes the position that “[i]t will be for this Court to decide, 

based on the parties’ submissions, whether Plaintiff has Article III standing.” But 

Defendant’s response simply provides a synopsis of court rulings from across the country 

post-Spokeo and fails to provide any evidence that assuages the Court’s concerns as to 

whether Plaintiff has suffered a sufficient concrete and particularized injury. 

Consequently, the Court finds that it has not been established that Plaintiff has suffered a 

concrete injury and that he lacks standing under Article III for his FDCPA claim. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the Superior 

Court of the State of California. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 4, 2017

 

2 To bring a suit in federal court a plaintiff must fulfill the Article III standing requirements. See Valley 

Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 453 U.S. 464, 

473 (1982). The “irreducible constitutional minimum” of Article III requires that: “(1) plaintiff suffered 

an injury in fact, (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct, and (3) the injury is likely to 

be redressed by a favorable decision.” Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992) 

(quotation marks and citation omitted). The question of constitutional standing is a “threshold matter 

central to [the Court’s] subject matter jurisdiction, and the Court must assure itself that the constitutional 

standing requirements are satisfied before proceeding to the merits.” Fulfillment Svcs Inc. v. United 

Parcel Svc., Inc., 528 F.3d 614, 618 (9th Cir. 2008).

Case 3:17-cv-00313-CAB-JLB Document 23 Filed 04/04/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3