Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00559/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00559-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

CRAIG SCHUB, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

)

v. )

)

)

ERNEST MERRILL, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00559-AWI-SMS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. 16) TO

GRANT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT AND

FOR SANCTIONS (DOC. 5)

ORDER DIRECTING PAYMENT OF

ATTORNEY’S FEES

ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION TO THE

MADERA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Defendants removed this action for damages from the Madera

County Superior Court. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’

motion to remand the action to state court. The motion to remand

was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304. 

On August 12, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed findings and

recommendations that recommended Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the

action to state court and for an award of sanctions (attorney’s

fees) be granted. The findings and recommendations were served

on all parties and contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days of the date of service of the order. Defendants filed timely

objections to the findings and recommendations on August 18,

Case 1:05-cv-00559-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/01/05 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

2005; Plaintiffs filed a timely reply to the objections on August

22, 2005.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(C) and Britt v. Simi Valley United School Dist., 708 F.2d

452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983), this Court has conducted a de novo

review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

the Court finds that the report and recommendation are supported

by the record and proper analysis. The undersigned has

considered the objections and reply and has determined there is

no need to modify the findings and recommendations based on the

points raised in the objections and reply. 

Any civil action commenced in state court is removable if it

might have been brought originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. §

1441(a). Removal statutes are strictly construed against

allowing removal jurisdiction. Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F. 2d 662,

663 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if

there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F. 2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.

1992). In the objections, Defendants contend, as they did

before the Magistrate Judge, that the claims in the current

action are related to case CV F-05-0196 AWI SMS, where Defendants

contend Madera County and others violated Defendants civil

rights. Defendants contend that Madera County and others’

conduct, as alleged in CV F-05-0196 AWI SMS, have caused the

state law violations alleged in this action. 

Defendants do not disagree with the Magistrate Judge’s

finding that this action contains no federal claims. Rather,

Defendants contend this action is related to CV F-05-0196 AWI

Case 1:05-cv-00559-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/01/05 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

SMS, over which this court does have federal question subject

matter jurisdiction. That a state court case is closely

related to an action pending in federal court is not grounds for

removal to federal court. See Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v.

Henson, 537 US 28, 34 (2002); Motion Control Corp. v. SICK, Inc.,

354 F3d 702, 705 (8th Cir. 2003). For both removal and original

jurisdiction, the federal question must be presented by

plaintiff's complaint as it stands at the time of removal.

Removal cannot be based on a counterclaim, cross-claim or third

party claim raising a federal question, whether filed in state or

federal court. Otherwise, defendants could manipulate removal

jurisdiction. See Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor

Co., 145 F3d 320, 327 (5th Cir. 1998). Thus, the court has no

jursidiciton over the current action merely because it is related

to Defendants’ claims that third parties have violated their

civil rights.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendation filed August 12, 2005,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and

2. Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions (attorney’s fees) IS

GRANTED, and Defendants SHALL PAY to Plaintiffs $4,075.50 in

fees; and

3. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand the action to state court IS

GRANTED, and the action IS ORDERED REMANDED to the Madera County

Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 29, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00559-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/01/05 Page 3 of 3