Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02338/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02338-1/pdf.json

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE UBERTI,

Plaintiff,

 v.

SONOMA COUNTY BOARD OF

SUPERVISORS and SONOMA

COUNTY AUDITORY-CONTROLLERTREASURER-TAX COLLECTOR

Defendants. /

No. C 19-02338 WHA

ORDER REMANDING

ACTION TO SONOMA

COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

INTRODUCTION

In this removed action, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim filed a Report and

Recommendation, recommending that the action be remanded to the Sonoma County Superior

Court. For the reasons below, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and the action is

REMANDED to the Sonoma County Superior Court.

STATEMENT

On February 8, pro se plaintiff George Uberti brought this action against the Sonoma

County Board of Supervisors and the Sonoma County Auditory-Controller-Treasurer-Tax

Collector. Plaintiff sought monetary damages, alleging that the Board’s decision to consolidate

the Auditor Controller Treasurer and Tax Collector duties violated, inter alia, 15 U.S.C. § 2

(Dkt. No. 1-1 at 2, 8).

Case 3:19-cv-02338-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/10/19 Page 1 of 3
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

On April 29, plaintiff (not defendants) removed the action to this district on the grounds

that the action “concern[ed] the substantial mismanagement of Federal Funds” and that “the

heads of county government [should] be tried outside the venue in which they may exert their

influence” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2). Plaintiff also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis

(“IFP”) and moved for permission to file electronically (Dkt. Nos. 2–3).

On May 9, Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim filed a Report and Recommendation concerning

plaintiff’s removal, IFP application, and motion to file electronically (Dkt. No. 6). Judge Kim

granted plaintiff’s application for IFP, denied his motion for electronic case filing, and

recommended that the action be remanded to state court on the basis of improper removal

(id. at 1–2). Plaintiff filed his objections to the Report and Recommendation on May 22 (Dkt.

No. 10).

ANALYSIS

When a party objects to a Report and Recommendation, “[a district court judge] shall

make a de novo determination of those portions of the report . . . to which objection is made.” 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Plaintiff’s objection to Judge Kim’s recommendation to remand relies

on three arguments.

Plaintiff first argues that he met his burden of establishing federal jurisdiction because

the action involves a federal question, giving the United States original jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This argument alone is insufficient to establish that Judge Kim’s

recommendation to remand was erroneous. In addition to establishing that the United States

has original jurisdiction, the moving party must also adhere to the proper procedure for removal

under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. 

Next, plaintiff contends that Judge Kim erred in relying on 28 U.S.C. § 1446 to impose

a time restraint on plaintiff’s removal, because she also found that the statute may not apply

to plaintiff. Plaintiff misunderstands. Judge Kim’s recommendation did not rely on an

inconsistent application of the statute. Judge Kim first questioned plaintiff’s ability to remove

this action, as 28 U.S.C. § 1446 describes only a defendant’s ability to remove a civil action

from state court (Dkt. No. 6 at 2). Judge Kim then noted that, even if plaintiff had authority to

Case 3:19-cv-02338-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/10/19 Page 2 of 3
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

3

remove under 28 U.S.C. § 1446, removal was improper because plaintiff removed the case from

state court over thirty days after he originally filed suit (ibid.). Accordingly, Judge Kim found

that, whether the statute applied to plaintiff or not, removal was improper and the action should

be remanded to state court (ibid.). Further, because removal statutes are strictly construed,

plaintiff’s questionable authority to remove suggests that removal should not be permitted. 

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Finally, plaintiff argues that he has the authority to remove the action to this district

under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), which governs transfer of a case from an improper venue to a proper

venue. Plaintiff’s argument fails for two reasons. First, contrary to plaintiff’s assertions,

Section 1406(a) does not grant plaintiff the authority to remove a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a)

states that when a case is filed in an improper venue, “[t]he district court . . . shall . . . transfer

such a case to any district or division in which it could have been brought” (emphasis added). 

Second, transfer refers to the practice of moving a case from one federal district court to

another, within the federal court system. Because this action originated in state court and

plaintiff sought to remove it from state court to federal court, a transfer under Section 1406

does not apply. 

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The Clerk

shall REMAND this action to the Sonoma County Superior Court and CLOSE THE FILE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 10, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-02338-WHA Document 11 Filed 06/10/19 Page 3 of 3