Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03245/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-03245-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 210
Nature of Suit: Land Condemnation
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF NEVADA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILD EARTH PROPERTY, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-03245-DJC-CSK

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

REMAND 

On November 22, 2024, Defendant John Williams, who proceeds without counsel, 

removed this action from Nevada County Superior Court.1 (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons 

that follow, the undersigned recommends this case be REMANDED to the Nevada 

County Superior Court. 

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

A. Removal and Remand

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) states “. . . any civil action brought in a State court of which 

the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the 

defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States . . . .” If at any time 

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 

Case 2:24-cv-03245-DJC-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/04/24 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

the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases

authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 

Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, 

unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 

1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotations omitted). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot 

decide the merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo 

Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 

1988).

A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 

arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 

alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction 

can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” 

subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 

U.S. 134, 141 (2012). 

II. DISCUSSION

This case was removed to federal court on August 19, 2024 by Defendant John 

Williams, who proceeds without counsel. (ECF No. 1.) A review of the operative 

Complaint (ECF No. 1 at 121-175) indicates the Court does not have subject matter 

jurisdiction, requiring remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

First, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Order to Abate Substandard Building and Appointment of 

Receiver” pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 17960-17992 against Defendants 

Wild Earth Property, LLC and John Williams. Compl. (ECF No. 1 at 122.) In his notice of 

removal, Defendant asserts the basis for removal is that he “believe[s] that the action of 

this case does violate my constitutional and property rights[.]” (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

However, there is no federal constitutional claims asserted in the Complaint. See Vaden 

Case 2:24-cv-03245-DJC-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/04/24 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

v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59-62 (2009) (“Under the longstanding well-pleaded 

complaint rule, . . . a suit ‘arises under’ federal law only when the plaintiff's statement of 

his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.”).

Second, complete diversity of the parties is lacking here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

According to the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff County of Nevada, Defendant Wild 

Earth Property, LLC and Defendant John Williams are all residents of California. Compl. 

at 121, 150. Thus, this case must be remanded back to the Nevada County Superior 

Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ho v. Russi, 45 F.4th 1083, 1086 (9th 

Cir. 2022) (noting the district court may issue orders ‘”without notice where lack of 

jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint and is obviously not curable”).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based upon the findings above, the Court RECOMMENDS:

1. This case be REMANDED back to the Nevada County Superior Court; and

2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply 

to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 days 

after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 

(9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: December 3, 2024

4, coun3245.24

Case 2:24-cv-03245-DJC-CSK Document 3 Filed 12/04/24 Page 3 of 3