Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01994/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01994-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 9:9 Motion to Confirm Arbitration Loan

---

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 - 08cv1994

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WACHOVIA SECURITIES, LLC and

EUGENE P. INGARGIOLA,

Respondents,

CASE NO. 08cv1994 JM(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

REMAND

vs.

WILLIAM R. HOLLAND and MICHAEL

W. HOLLAND,

Petitioners.

The court summarily remands this action for several reasons. First, the Notice of Removal,

filed on October 8, 2008 by Petitioners William and Michael Holland, alleges federal question

jurisdiction and purports to remove a petition for the confirmation of an award by an arbitration panel

of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority Dispute Resolution. “Any civil action of which the

district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution,

treaties or laws of the Untied States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence

of the parties.” 28 U.S.C. §1441(b). Whether a claim “arises under” federal law for removal purposes

is determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S.

470, 475 (1998). A case “arises under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. §1331 when

federal law either (1) creates the cause of action or (2) the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends

on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See Franchise Tax Board v. Construction

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). Petitioners, as the parties who invoke federal

removal jurisdiction, have the burden of demonstrating the existence of federal jurisdiction. See Gaus

Case 3:08-cv-01994-JM-RBB Document 12 Filed 11/05/08 Page 1 of 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

- 2 - 08cv1994

v. Miles, Inc. 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545 (5th Cir.

1981). Any doubts regarding removal jurisdiction are construed against removal and in favor of

remanding the case to state court. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Here, Respondents brought the motion

to confirm an arbitrator’s award in state court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §1285

et seq. As there is no federal question presented by the motion to confirm the arbitration award

pursuant to state law, the court lacks original jurisdiction to entertain the action. 

Second, Petitioners commenced this action in state court and cannot remove their own action

to federal court. See Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007). It

is well-established that a plaintiff cannot remove his own case to federal court even where there exits

a federal counterclaim. Id.

Third, this action appears to have been improvidently removed by counsel who is not the

attorney of record in the Superior Court action. Wells Fargo & Co. v. City and County of San

Francisco, 25 Cal.2d 37 (1944) (“it is settled that the attorney of record has the exclusive right to

appear in court for his client and to control the court proceedings, so that neither the party himself .

. . nor another attorney can be recognized by the court in the conduct or disposition of the case”).

Fourth, in their opposition to Respondents motion to remand, Petitioners do not oppose

remanding the action. 

In sum, for the above stated reasons, the court remands this action to state court. The Clerk

of Court is instructed to close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 5, 2008

 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller

 United States District Judge

cc: All parties

Case 3:08-cv-01994-JM-RBB Document 12 Filed 11/05/08 Page 2 of 2