Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01387/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-01387-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER M. OWENS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

IRIS CANADA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 16-cv-01387-EMC 

ORDER REMANDING CASE

On March 22, 2016, Defendant Iris Canada removed the instant case from state court, on 

the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Docket No. 1. This is the second time that Ms. Canada has 

removed the case; this Court previously remanded the case on February 12, 2016, finding that the 

court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the case. Case No. 16-cv-514, Docket No. 13 (Ord.) at 

2. In short, the Court found that Ms. Canada’s removal based on diversity jurisdiction was 

improper because: (1) a civil action may not be removed if any defendant is a citizen of the state in 

which the action is brought (forum defendant rule) and Ms. Canada is a California resident, and 

(2) the attempted removal was untimely. Id. at 2-3.

Ms. Canada now seeks to remove on the basis of federal question jurisdiction and diversity 

jurisdiction. The Court finds that neither are an appropriate basis for jurisdiction. First, Ms. 

Canada does not establish federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction depends on 

the contents of the plaintiff’s (i.e., the Owens’s) well-pleaded complaint and may not be 

predicated on the defendant’s (i.e., Ms. Canada’s) counterclaims or defenses. See Holmes Group, 

Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002); ARCO Envtl. Remediation, 

LLC. v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, even if Ms. 

Canada asserts defenses or counterclaims based on federal statutes, federal question jurisdiction is 

Case 3:16-cv-01387-EMC Document 10 Filed 04/05/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

For the Northern District of California

dependent on the Owens’s complaint (which brings claims solely under state law). See Docket 

No. 1-1 (Compl.). Second, Ms. Canada is still unable to establish diversity jurisdiction per the 

forum defendant rule and because her removal is untimely. As the Court lacks jurisdiction over 

this case, the Court REMANDS this action back to the Superior Court of San Francisco.

Ms. Canada is forewarned that any further attempts to remove this case will result in the

Court imposing sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 5, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:16-cv-01387-EMC Document 10 Filed 04/05/16 Page 2 of 2