Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00403/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00403-0/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CINDY WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SHASTA COUNTY; SHASTA COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and 

DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00403-JAM-DMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

TO REMAND

Cindy Wagner filed suit against Shasta County and its 

sheriff’s department in Shasta County Superior Court. See Ex. A 

to Notice of Removal (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. Defendants removed 

the case to federal court, invoking this Court’s federal question 

jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 

1 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343). Wagner timely filed a motion 

to remand, but failed to first satisfy the Court’s meet-andconfer requirements. See Mot. to Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 4; 

Order re Filing Requirements, ECF No. 2-2. The Court dismissed 

her motion on this ground. ECF No. 9.

Five days later, Wagner filed a response to the Court’s 

dismissal. ECF No. 10. Good cause appearing, the Court sua 

Case 2:20-cv-00403-JAM-DMC Document 11 Filed 05/20/20 Page 1 of 3
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

2

sponte VACATES its dismissal and decides Wagner’s motion on the 

merits, based on her opening brief and Defendants’ opposition, 

ECF No. 8.1 But for the reasons discussed below, Wagner’s motion 

to remand is nonetheless denied. 

I. OPINION

A defendant may remove a case from state to federal court if 

the federal court would have had jurisdiction over the matter 

were it originally filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Moore-Tomas v. 

Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2009). The 

defendant then bears the burden of establishing that removal is 

proper. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Although the federal removal statute carries with it a “strong 

presumption against removal,” id., a plaintiff may not defeat 

removal by “artfully pleading” a federal cause of action as a 

state claim. Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 

475 (1998). 

District courts have federal question jurisdiction over all

suits “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The first five claims in 

Wagner’s complaint allege Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct 

violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983—a federal statute. Compl. ¶¶ 39-90. 

The sixth claim contends that same conduct also gives rise to a 

Bane Act claim under state law. Compl. ¶¶ 91-94. Lastly, Wagner

raises claims of negligence, battery, and intentional infliction 

of emotional distress. Compl. ¶¶ 95-115. 

1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 

oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). 

Case 2:20-cv-00403-JAM-DMC Document 11 Filed 05/20/20 Page 2 of 3
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

3

There is simply no denying that Wagner’s section 1983 claims 

arise under federal law. And as Defendants’ opposition argues, 

Raines v. Criterion Sys. Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996) 

does not alter this conclusion. Opp’n at 5. The Court has 

federal-question jurisdiction over Wagner’s first five causes of 

action. Moreover, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 

Wagner’s four state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. These 

claims arise out of the same factual allegations as Wagner’s 

federal claims, and are “so related” to the federal claims “that 

they form part of the same case or controversy.” Id. The 

considerations set forth in section 1367(c) do not provide the 

Court with any compelling basis for declining to exercise 

supplemental jurisdiction here. 

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Wagner’s 

federal and state law claims. Removal was therefore proper. 

II. ORDER

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES

Plaintiff’s motion to remand.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2020

Case 2:20-cv-00403-JAM-DMC Document 11 Filed 05/20/20 Page 3 of 3