Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03260/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-03260-1/pdf.json

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ASHWANI K BHAKHRI,

Plaintiff,

v

BRIJ MOHAN DHIR,

Defendant. /

No C-05-3260 VRW

ORDER

On November 29, 2005, the court remanded this case to

Alameda County superior court for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Doc #13. Defendant Brij Mohan Dhir (“Dhir”) then

requested leave to file a motion for reconsideration pursuant to

Civ L R 7-9(b). Doc #14.

Some of the confusion here seems to exist because this

case actually stems from two separate state cases. In case no

HG03112305 (“‘305 case”), Dhir sued Ashwani K Bhakhri (“Bhakhri”)

and other parties for, inter alia, federal civil rights and

constitutional violations. In case no HG05224370 (“‘370 case”),

Bhakhri sued Dhir on a single, state-law libel claim. Dhir asserts

in the present motion that when determining whether remand was

Case 3:05-cv-03260-VRW Document 16 Filed 01/06/06 Page 1 of 2
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

2

proper, the court should have considered Dhir’s federal claims in

the ‘305 case. Id at 2-3.

Federal jurisdiction is normally measured by the

yardstick of the well-pleaded complaint rule. “Under this rule, ‘a

cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiffs’

well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law.’ For removal

to be appropriate, a federal question must appear on the face of

the complaint.” Toumajian v Frailey, 135 F3d 648, 653 (9th Cir

1998) (quoting Metropolitan Life Ins Co v Taylor, 481 US 58, 63

(1987) and citing Franchise Tax Board v Construction Laborers

Vacation Trust, 463 US 1, 9-10 (1983)). In addition, only a

defendant may remove a case to federal court. See, e g, 28 USC §§

1441(a), 1443.

Because Dhir is the plaintiff, not the defendant, in the

‘305 case, Dhir cannot remove that case to federal court. And

because Bhakhri only asserted a state-law libel claim in the ‘370

case, the well-pleaded complaint rule prevents Dhir from removing

that case as well. Since the court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction over both the ‘305 and ‘370 cases, remand is required

and the court DENIES Dhir’s request for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:05-cv-03260-VRW Document 16 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2