Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03269/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 470
Nature of Suit: Civil (Rico)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Docket No. 15.

2

Docket No. 8. The Court hereafter refers to Daniels Plaintiffs and Levesque Plaintiffs collectively, as “Plaintiffs.”

3

The Court hereafter refers to K Platinum Defendants and Individual Defendants collectively, as “Defendants.”

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMY LEVESQUE,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

KANYA TENNYSHA COLEMAN, ET AL.

Defendant. /

No. C07-03269 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO REMAND

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiffs Dorothy Daniels, Theatris Ervin, Rendy Lola Perkins, and

Donna Wilson’s (collectively “Daniels Plaintiffs”) Motion to Remand.1

 Also before the Court is

Plaintiffs Avis Doctor, Chari Ogogo, Paulette Mayo, Karen Smith, Suzette Steinberg, Thomas

Steinberg, Amy Leveque, George Roach, Agree Johan, Sylvia Hernandez, Dick Ling, John O’Brien,

Kiflai Tesfai, Laura Zamora, and Raul Zamora’s (collectively “Levesque Plaintiffs”) Motion to

Remand.2

 Defendants K Platinum Group, Inc.; K Platinum International Group, Inc.; K Platinum

Associates, Inc.; K Platinum International Associates, Inc.; K Platinum Financial International

Realty, Inc. (collectively “K Platinum Defendants”); Kanya Tennysha Coleman; and Brenda Ann

Michelson (collectively, “Individual Defendants”) oppose Plaintiffs’ motion.3 For the following

Case 3:07-cv-03269-MJJ Document 31 Filed 08/31/07 Page 1 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

A complete list of the eleven state court case numbers is as follows: 

(1) Bruce Sarubin v. K Platinum Group, Inc., et al., Case No.: MSC 07-00049;

(2) Hemwattie Docu v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No: MSC07-00080; 

(3) Newell Walker v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-00106; 

(4) Jimmie T. Braden, Sr., v. REPS Real Estate Services, K Platinum International Group, Inc., et al., Case

No.: MSC07-00454; 

(5) Dorothy Daniels v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-00483; 

(6) Theatris Ervin v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-00484;

(7) Rendy Lola Perkins v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-00485;

(8) Donna Wilson v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-00486;

(9) Avis Doctor, Chari Ogogo, Paulette Mayo, Karen Smith, Suzette Steinberg, Thomas Steinberg v. K.

Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-01016;

(10) Charmaine Bennett v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-01075; and 

(11) Amy Leveque, George Roach v. Kanya Tennysha Coleman, et al., Case No.: MSC07-01018.

2

reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand.

BACKGROUND

The current case consists of eleven4

 individual actions, originally brought in state court by

different Plaintiffs at various times, against the same group of Defendants. The state court

consolidated the actions for purposes of discovery after determining that the actions presented

common questions of law and fact. After consolidation, Defendants removed all eleven actions to

this Court on grounds that two of the recent complaints asserted federal claims. Daniels Plaintiffs

and Levesque Plaintiffs – who are two groups of Plaintiffs in those eleven actions – now seek an

order remanding the eleven cases to state court. A timeline of the relevant procedural history of this

action is as follows.

On March 12, 2007, the four Daniels Plaintiffs filed individual complaints against

Defendants in the Contra Costa County Superior Court asserting state law causes of action for

breach of contract, common counts, and fraud. (Carter Decl. ¶¶ 2-3) (Dorothy Daniels v. K.

Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-00483; Theatris Ervin v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et

al., Case No.: MSC07-00484; Rendy Lola Perkins v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.:

MSC07-00485; Donna Wilson v. K. Platinum Group, Inc. et al., Case No.: MSC07-00486.) Daniels

Plaintiffs served their complaints on K Platinum Defendants on May 1, 2007 and served Coleman on

May 18, 2007. (Id. ¶ 2.) 

On May 11, 2007 Plaintiffs Levesque and Roach filed their joint complaint against

Defendants in the Contra Costa County Superior Court asserting various state law causes for fraud,

Case 3:07-cv-03269-MJJ Document 31 Filed 08/31/07 Page 2 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

negligent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, breach of contract, negligence, unlawful sales of

securities in violation of the California Corporations Code, and a single federal cause of action for

violation of Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq.

(“RICO”). (Notice of Removal, Case No. 07-3269 MJJ, Docket No. 1) (Amy Leveque, George

Roach v. Kanya Tennysha Coleman, et al., Case No.: MSC07-01018) (“Levesque action”). Plaintiffs

Leveque and Roach served their complaint on Coleman and K Platinum Defendants on May 25,

2007, (id. at Coleman Decl. ¶ 2), and served Michelson on June 3, 2007, (id. at Michelson Decl. ¶ 2).

On May 15, 2007 Plaintiffs Doctor, Ogogo, Mayo, Smith, Steinberg, and Steinberg, filed

their joint complaint against Defendants in the Contra Costa County Superior Court asserting causes

of action identical to those asserted by Levesque and Roach. Plaintiffs served their complaint on

Coleman and K Platinum Defendants on May 25, 2007, (id. at Coleman Decl. ¶ 2), and served

Michelson on June 3, 2007, (id. at Michelson Decl. ¶ 2) (“Doctor action”).

On June 8, 2007, the state court judge ordered consolidation of all cases against the K

Platinum Defendants and Coleman. The consolidation order was without prejudice to the right of a

party to request separation for purposes of trial. (Carter Decl. ¶ 9.) 

On June 21, 2007, Defendants filed a notice of removal in all eleven cases. Defendants

asserted that the Levesque and Doctor complaints each asserted a federal RICO claim in addition to

state law causes of action and that federal subject matter jurisdiction was therefore appropriate

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367, for the RICO claim and state law claims, respectively. 

(See Notices of Removal.) Plaintiffs subsequently requested that the state court dismiss the RICO

claim, however because the state court was without jurisdiction, it declined to do so. (Carter Decl.

Ex. 4.) 

At a hearing on June 25, 2007, the state court ruled that because the Levesque and Coleman

actions were a part of the eleven previously consolidated cases, the removal of the Levesque and

Coleman actions resulted in removal of all eleven cases. (Id. Ex. 5, Court Transcript 9:25-12:5.) At

that hearing Plaintiffs sought a stipulation from Defendants to dismiss the RICO claim, however

Defendants refused, at which point the state court judge opined that Plaintiffs would likely be

entitled to sanctions for “making [Plaintiffs] go to federal court and make your [remand] motion.” 

Case 3:07-cv-03269-MJJ Document 31 Filed 08/31/07 Page 3 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Section 1441(b) further provides that if the basis for federal jurisdiction is diversity of citizenship, removal is

available only if no defendant is a citizen of the forum state. 

6

Untimely removal is a procedural, rather than a jurisdictional, defect. Maniar v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., 979 F.2d

782, 785 (9th Cir. 1992). 

4

(Id. at 8-9.) 

LEGAL STANDARD

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant in a civil action may remove a case from state

court to federal district court if the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. The

district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case if there is diversity of citizenship between

the parties or if the action is founded on a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question); 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversity jurisdiction); Ethridge v. Harbor House Restaurant, 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988).5

 As the party seeking to remove the action, the defendant bears the burden of establishing that

subject matter jurisdiction exists. Ethridge, 861 F.2d at 1393. Because the Court strictly construes

the removal statute against removal, if there is any doubt as to the existence of federal jurisdiction,

the Court should remand the matter to state court. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

Cir. 1992). 

The procedure for removal is set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1446. This section provides that a

defendant seeking to remove a civil action to federal court must file a notice identifying the basis for

removal “within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy

of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action or proceeding is

based[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), a plaintiff may challenge the propriety of removal based on

procedural defects and move to remand a case to state court within 30 days after the filing of the

notice of removal. See N. Cal. Dist. Council of Laborers v. Pittsburg-Des Moines Steel Co., 69 F.3d

1034, 1037 (9th Cir. 2003).6

ANALYSIS

Plaintiffs make a series of arguments against removal. Daniels Plaintiffs argue that because

the deadline for removal is thirty days from service, and because they served their complaints on

Case 3:07-cv-03269-MJJ Document 31 Filed 08/31/07 Page 4 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

5

Defendants more than thirty days prior to the removal, Defendants’ removal is therefore untimely as

to the Daniels Plaintiffs’ actions. Daniels Plaintiffs also contend that a number of the state court

actions do not assert federal claims, and therefore removal is improper as to those actions. Levesque

Plaintiffs make similar arguments, but additionally argue that Defendants have failed to properly

join each Defendant in their removal, therefore the removal is procedurally improper for lack of

unanimity. Finally, both Plaintiffs point out that they now seek to dismiss their RICO claims, and

that this Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining and

predominate state law causes of actions.

Defendants respond and contend that their removal was timely because the current action did

not become removable until the Levesque and Doctor Plaintiffs served their federal question claims

in May 25, 2007. Accordingly, because the deadline for removal is thirty days, Defendants insist

their June, 21 2007 removal was timely. Defendants also argue that federal subject matter

jurisdiction existed at the time of removal by virtue of Plaintiffs’ RICO claim. Lastly, Defendants’

submit that Plaintiffs’ California Corporations Code claims and common law fraud claims are

actually federal claims under the Securities and Exchange Act, and are therefore within the exclusive

jurisdiction of this Court. As explained below, the Court finds Defendants’ arguments unpersuasive. 

It is true that the district courts have supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims that

“derive from a common nucleus of operative fact, such that the relationship between the federal

claim and the state claim permits the conclusion that the entire action before the court comprises but

one constitutional case.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a); City of Chicago v. Int'l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S.

156, 165 (1997) (internal quotations omitted). However, it is within the court’s discretion to remand

the supplemental state claims if they meet one of four criteria: (1) “the claim raises a novel or

complex issue of State law;” (2) the State law claim “substantially predominates over the claim or

claims over which the district court has original jurisdiction;” (3) “the district court has dismissed all

claims over which it has original jurisdiction;” or (4) “in exceptional circumstances, there are other

compelling reasons for declining jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c).

Here, having considered the parties arguments and upon good cause shown, the Court

initially finds Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss their federal claim militates in favor of remanding the

Case 3:07-cv-03269-MJJ Document 31 Filed 08/31/07 Page 5 of 6
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 7

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ request to dismiss their tenth cause of action for violation of RICO. 

6

entire action.7 Although federal subject matter jurisdiction existed in the Levesque and Doctor

actions at the time of their removal, in the exercise of discretion the Court finds that remand is

appropriate on the current record. Plaintiffs’ remaining claims arise exclusively under state law and

therefore predominate the action. As to the remaining claims, Defendants have failed to adduce

persuasive legal authority for their argument that the remaining state law claims are actually federal

claims within this Court’s exclusive jurisdiction. Because there are no remaining federal claims and

the because state law claims predominate the action, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion to

remand the action. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-03269-MJJ Document 31 Filed 08/31/07 Page 6 of 6