Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01437/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01437-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
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 - 08cv1437 WQH (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SUNBELT TOWING, INC. dba

WESTERN TOWING,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 08cv1437 WQH (BLM)

ORDER

vs.

ANDREW JACKSON MOORE,

Defendant.

HAYES, Judge:

The matter before the Court is the Motion to Remand to State Court (Doc. # 6) filed by

Plaintiff Sunbelt Towing, Inc. 

Background

On February 2, 2008, Plaintiff Sunbelt Towing, Inc. initiated this action by filing a

“Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court” (“Complaint”) (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff alleges

that it is a towing company located in San Diego, CA, and that Defendant Andrew Moore is

an individual located in Lemon Grove, CA. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes $2,499.00

in towing, storage and lien fees. 

On August 7, 2008, Defendant removed the action to this Court. Notice of Removal,

p. 12. The Notice of Removal states that this Court has jurisdiction “[d]ue to the Original

Jurisdiction Granted to Article III District Court of the United States, and the 7th Amendment

mention any controversy over Twenty Dollar.” Notice of Removal, p. 2. The Notice of

Removal states:

Case 3:08-cv-01437-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 11/03/08 Page 1 of 4
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 - 08cv1437 WQH (BLM)

The grounds for removal are as follows: 

Andrew Moore inclusive $20.00 Shall be Granted under the rules of the

Common Law vs the Plaintiff Claim of Relief under special Maritime Extraterritory Jurisdictional Proceeding or some contract of Affreightment under gold

Fringe Flag, for this reason the respondents in the above-entitled civil action

Removal filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central

Division Case No. 37-2008-00000586-SC-SC-CTL.

In addition, the amount in controversy as to the claims of both parties exceeds

$20.00.

Id. Defendant attached the Complaint to the Notice of Removal, which alleges that Defendant

owes Plaintiff $2,499.00 in towing, storage and lien fees. Id. at 7. 

On August 11, 2008, Defendant filed the “Motion for Summary Judgments and

Alternative Motion to Quash Summon/ Complaint Alternative Order to Show Cause why the

Complaint should not be Dismiss With Prejudice” (“Motion for Summary Judgment”) (Doc.

# 3). On September 1, 2008, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the Motion for

Summary Judgment (Doc. # 4). 

On September 5, 2008, Plaintiff filed the Motion to Remand. Plaintiff requests that this

Court remand the action to state court on grounds that this Court lacks subject matter

jurisdiction and that Defendant’s removal procedure was defective. Plaintiff also requests that

the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s “costs & fees incurred as the result of removal,

as well as sanctions for [Defendant’s] frivolous attempt at removal.” Mot. to Remand, p. 6. 

Defendant has not filed any opposition to the Motion to Remand. 

Analysis

Plaintiff contends that the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this 

action. Plaintiff contends that there is no federal question presented by Plaintiff’s case because

Plaintiff’s “claim is merely derived from a stat[e] statutory right to collect towing and lien fees

from [Defendant] and has no basis in federal law.” Mot. to Remand, p. 4. Plaintiff contends

that “[w]here, as here, Plaintiff has alleged only state law claims, no grounds for removal

exists.” Id. Plaintiff contends there is no diversity between the parties because, as alleged in

the Complaint, Defendant is a resident of the County of San Diego, State of California, and

Plaintiff is a business incorporated in and with its principal place of business in the County of

Case 3:08-cv-01437-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 11/03/08 Page 2 of 4
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 - 08cv1437 WQH (BLM)

San Diego, State of California. Plaintiff also contends that the amount in controversy does not

exceed $75,000.00 because Defendant has not alleged any amount in controversy in addition

to the $2,499.00 judgment against him that is at issue in this case. Plaintiff further contends

that “[a] cursory review of the requirements for removal would and should have apprised

[Defendant] that he had no substantive or procedural basis for filing a notice of removal,” and

that Defendant “prematurely and inappropriately filed a motion to quash and motion for

summary judgment before [Plaintiff] could even respond to the removal.” Id. at 6. Plaintiff

requests that the Court order Defendant to pay Plaintiff’s fees and costs incurred as the result

of removal, and impose “any additional amount in sanctions this Court feels appropriate.” Id.

at 6-7. 

28 U.S.C. section 1441(a) provides that “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 for the district and

division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The district

courts have original jurisdiction over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The district courts also have original

jurisdiction in cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of

$75,000.00 and the parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Removal

jurisdiction is also proper in actions against federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted, in

civil rights cases, and in foreclosure actions against the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1442, 1443,

1444. 

There is a “strong presumption against removal” such that the removing party “always

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” 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.” Id. 

28 U.S.C. section 1447(c) provides that “[a]n order remanding the case may require

payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

The “standard for awarding fees should turn on the reasonable basis for seeing removal.”

Case 3:08-cv-01437-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 11/03/08 Page 3 of 4
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 - 08cv1437 WQH (BLM)

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 140 (2005). “Absent unusual circumstances,

courts may award attorney’s fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an

objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal. Id. 

Defendant does not assert that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00 or that

either party is not a resident of California. Defendant has failed to establish diversity

jurisdiction. Defendant does not assert that Plaintiff’s claims, which assert the right to collect

towing and lien fees from Defendant, arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

United States. Defendant has failed to establish that the Complaint implicates a federal

question. Defendant’s assertion of a claim of relief “under special Maritime Extra-territory

Jurisdictional Proceeding or some contract of Affreightment” is insufficient to satisfy

Defendant’s burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant does not assert any

other valid basis for subject matter jurisdiction. The Court concludes that Defendant, as the

removing party, has failed to meet his burden of establishing a valid basis for federal

jurisdiction. The Court grants the Motion to Remand. The Court declines to exercise its

discretion to award Defendant fees and costs, or to impose sanctions. 

Conclusion

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Remand (Doc. # 6) is GRANTED. The

above-captioned action is REMANDED to state court. All other pending motions in this

action are DENIED as moot. 

DATED: November 3, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:08-cv-01437-WQH-BLM Document 9 Filed 11/03/08 Page 4 of 4