Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01606/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01606-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBIN DIAMOND, et al. 

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

 No. Civ. 05-1606 DFL DAD

ORDER

This dispute arises out of actions that defendants allegedly

took in response to threats that a high school student allegedly

made in her online journal. Plaintiffs are a Rio Americano High

School student and her parents. The complaint includes a claim

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as well as various state law claims. The

action was originally filed in Sacramento Superior Court on May

13, 2005. Defendants County of Sacramento, Sacramento County

Sheriff’s Department, Anthony Jenkins, and Lou Blanas then

removed the case to federal court without the consent of the

remaining defendants, including defendant San Juan Unified School

District (“School District”). The School District now moves to

Case 2:05-cv-01606-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 1 of 7
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

2

dismiss, asserting Eleventh Amendment immunity. In opposition,

plaintiffs move to remand the entire case to state court on the

ground that not all defendants consented to removal. Plaintiffs

also seek attorney’s fees. For the reasons stated below, the

court: (1) remands to state court the claim against the School

District; (2) retains the claims against the remaining

defendants; and (3) denies plaintiffs’ motion for attorneys fees. 

I.

On August 12, 2005, defendants County of Sacramento,

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, Anthony Jenkins, and Lou

Blanas filed a notice of removal to this court. (Docket #1.) 

These defendants (“removing defendants”) did not obtain the

consent of the remaining defendants to remove, claiming that

“there [was] no indication that those defendants [had] been

served yet.” (Notice of Removal of Action (“Removal Notice”) ¶

5.) In fact, at least the School District, if not all

defendants, had been served.

Now in federal court, the School District asserts Eleventh

Amendment immunity and moves to dismiss the claims against it. 

Plaintiffs concede that the School District is immune from suit

in federal court under the Eleventh Amendment. (Mot. to Remand

at 7.) Nonetheless, plaintiffs request a remand of the entire

case to state court rather than a dismissal of the School

District. They claim that the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction to decide the School District’s motion because not

all defendants consented to removal. (Id. at 5.) Therefore,

Case 2:05-cv-01606-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

plaintiffs assert that remand is the only proper solution. (Id.) 

As discussed below, plaintiffs’ position fails because it was not

timely asserted. However, partial remand is appropriate based on

Eleventh Amendment immunity.

 II.

A. Failure to Gain Consent of all Defendants to Remove

The normal rule is that all defendants must join in a

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446. However, “[f]ailure to join all

defendants is a procedural defect,” and the failure to obtain

joinder or consent from all defendants does not destroy subject

matter jurisdiction. N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v.

Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d 1034, 1037 (9th Cir.

1995). Moreover, the defect “must be raised within 30 days after

the filing of the removal petition” or it is waived. Id. On

August 12, 2005, the removing defendants filed a notice of

removal. Eighty-nine days later, on November 9, 2005, plaintiffs

filed the motion to remand. Therefore, the motion to remand on

the basis of a procedural defect is untimely and must be denied. 

B. Remand Based on Eleventh Amendment Immunity

School Districts in California are part of the State for

purposes of the immunity accorded by the Eleventh Amendment. 

See Belanger v. Madera Unified Sch. Dist., 963 F.2d 248, 250 (9th

Cir. 1992.) Since the School District did not consent to this

action or join in the removal, the School District did not waive

the protection of the Eleventh Amendment. Thus, the claims

against the School District may not go forward in federal court. 

Case 2:05-cv-01606-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

The only issue is whether the court should remand the claims

against the School District or dismiss the School District. Of

course, a dismissal would not affect plaintiffs’ ability to refile against the School District in state court, so that the

ultimate result is possibly the same under either pathway,

although dismissal will cause some additional work and expense on

the part of plaintiffs.

A respected treatise on federal procedure states that “[i]f

all or some of the claims in a lawsuit are barred by the Eleventh

Amendment, the court may either dismiss or remand the barred

claims.” Schwarzer, et al., Cal. Prac. Guide: Fed. Civ. Proc.

Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2005) § 2:1088.8 (citing Wis.

Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 387-92 (1998)). Some

circuits have concluded that immunity destroys subject matter

jurisdiction and that only remand is proper. Roach v. W. Va.

Reg’l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth., 74 F.3d 46, 47, 49 (4th Cir.

1996); Smith v. Wis. Dep’t of Agric., Trade & Consumer Prot., 23

F.3d 1134, 1140, 1148 (7th Cir. 1994); Fent v. Okla. Water Res.

Bd., 235 F.3d 553, 558-59 (10th Cir. 2000). However, the Ninth

Circuit has held that Eleventh Amendment immunity is not a matter

of subject matter jurisdiction. Miles v. California, 320 F.3d

986 (9th Cir. 2003). Therefore, the court may either remand or

dismiss. See Embury v. King, 191 F.Supp. 2d 1071, 1078 (N.D.Cal.

2001) (finding claims barred by immunity can either be “remanded

to State court or dismissed and refiled there.”). Although both

options are available, “it is well-settled that the preferable

Case 2:05-cv-01606-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

course of action is to remand those claims barred by the Eleventh

Amendment to the state court from which they were removed.” 

Watkins v. Cal. Dep’t of Corr., 100 F.Supp.2d 1227, 1232

(C.D.Cal. 2000); Embury, 191 F.Supp.2d at 1078. 

Because a remand is more efficient and because there is no

reason why the case may not proceed against the School District

in state court, the court remands the claims against the School

District to the Superior Court of Sacramento County. 

C. Remand of Entire Case

Plaintiffs seek to remand the entire case, arguing that

adjudicating the case in two different courts “would be virtually

impossible, as well as a poor use of judicial resources.” (Mot.

to Remand at 6.) However, remand of claims barred under the

Eleventh Amendment “does not destroy removal jurisdiction over

the remaining claims in the case.” Schacht, 524 U.S. at 392. A

court can proceed to hear the non-barred claims. Id. at 393. 

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has concluded that a court must hear

the non-barred claims and cannot “remand a case in its entirety

where there is subject matter jurisdiction over some portion of

it.” Lee, 260 F.3d at 1002. 

The Lee court recognized that its “interpretation of §

1447(c) admittedly may result in largely duplicative state and

federal court proceedings.” Id. at 1007. A properly removed

case may “be split up when it is subsequently determined that

some claims cannot be adjudicated in federal court.” Id. For

Case 2:05-cv-01606-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

example, a “district court may decide the plaintiff's claims

against state employees sued in their individual capacity, but,

if the state asserts its Eleventh Amendment immunity, may not

decide claims against the state.” Id. at 1007, n.9. However,

the preference for judicial economy does not “override the

language of § 1447(c) proscribing a remand of the entire case

when there is subject matter jurisdiction over some of it.” Id.

at 1007. A certain amount of inefficiency is built into our dual

court system. 

Although the court remands the claims against the School

District, it retains subject matter jurisdiction over the claims

against the removing defendants, and, therefore, must deny the

motion to remand these claims as well. If plaintiffs are intent

on a single litigation in one court, they may either dismiss the

School District or dismiss the federal claims against the

remaining defendants.

D. Attorneys Fees

An order of remand may require the removing defendants to

pay plaintiffs’ “just costs and any actual expenses, including

attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c). Fees may not be awarded “when the removing party has an

objectively reasonable basis for removal.” Martin v. Franklin

Capital Corp., 126 S.Ct. 704, 708 (2005). Given that the removal

here was objectively reasonable and has been upheld in major

part, the request for fees is DENIED.

Case 2:05-cv-01606-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

III. 

For the reasons stated above, the court: (1) remands the

claims against the School District to the Superior Court for the

County of Sacramento; (2) denies the motion to remand the claims

against the remaining defendants; and (3) denies plaintiffs’

request for attorneys fees.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 1/30/2006.

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-01606-DFL-DAD Document 14 Filed 01/31/06 Page 7 of 7