Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02338/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02338-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 375
Nature of Suit: False Claims Act
Cause of Action: 31:3729 False Claims 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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE UBERTI,

Plaintiff,

v.

SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF 

SUPERVISORS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-02338-SK 

ORDER OF REASSIGNMENT AND 

REPORT AND RECOMMEDATION 

FOR REMAND

Regarding Docket Nos. 1, 2, 3

On April 29, 2019, Plaintiff George Uberti, proceeding pro se, removed this action from 

Sonoma County Superior Court and filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), as 

well as a motion for permission to file electronically. In his motion to file electronically, Plaintiff 

failed to indicate that he has regular access to the listed items, such as a computer with internet 

access. Therefore, the Court DENIES his motion for permission for electronic case filing without 

prejudice. 

Defendants have not yet appeared and, thus, have not consented to the jurisdiction of a 

magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the Court does not have authority to make 

a dispositive ruling in this case. Accordingly, the Court orders that this case be REASSIGNED to 

a district judge. Moreover, for the reasons set forth below, the Court RECOMMENDS that the 

District Court REMAND this action to state court.

The Court may authorize a plaintiff to file an action in federal court without prepayment of 

fees or security if the plaintiff submits an affidavit showing that he or she is unable to pay such 

fees or give security therefor. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court finds that Plaintiff has

demonstrated that he is unable to pay the filing fee and, thus, GRANTS his application for IFP. 

However, the in forma pauperis statute provides that the Court shall dismiss the case if, inter alia, 

Case 3:19-cv-02338-WHA Document 6 Filed 05/09/19 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

Northern District of California

the Complaint is frivolous or malicious, or fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Moreover, the Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction 

and may remand a case sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal courts are courts of 

limited jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 

(1994). Accordingly, the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on 

the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal 

jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. 

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is 

any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1446, provides that a defendant may remove civil actions 

in accordance with certain requirements. The statute is silent with respect to a plaintiff. 

Therefore, it is not clear whether Plaintiff had the authority to remove this action. Regardless, 

Plaintiff removed this action more than thirty days of receiving notice of thus suit. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b) (providing a thirty-day deadline to remove). Plaintiff filed this action in state court on 

February 8, 2019, but did not remove this action to this Court until April 29, 2019, more than two

months later. Therefore, Plaintiff’s removal is untimely. Therefore, the Court RECOMMENDS 

that this action be REMANDED to Sonoma County Superior Court. 

The Court notes that there appear to be defects with Plaintiff’s claims. However, because 

this action was not properly removed, the Court FURTHER RECOMMENDS letting the state 

court address the merits of Plaintiff’s claims upon Defendants’ demurrer, which they filed before 

Plaintiff removed this action.

Any party may object to this recommendation within fourteen days of the filing date of this 

order. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2019

______________________________________

SALLIE KIM

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:19-cv-02338-WHA Document 6 Filed 05/09/19 Page 2 of 2