Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02951/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-02951-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

– 1 – 14-cv-02951 

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 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ANTON EWING, 

 Plaintiffs, 

Case No. 14-cv-02951-BAS(MDD)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR REMAND 

(ECF No. 4) 

 v. 

FARRELL K. LAYTON, ET AL., 

 Defendants. 

 

 Plaintiff Anton Ewing (“Plaintiff”) commenced this action in San Diego 

Superior Court on November 6, 2014 against Defendants Farrell K. Layton, Tracy 

Dishno, Stacee Botsford, Kaitlin Koehne, Shelley J. Zimmerman, San Diego Police 

Department, City of San Diego, County of San Diego, William D. Gore, and San 

Diego County Sheriff’s Department alleging Defendants violated his constitutional 

and statutory rights under both state and federal law. (ECF No. 1-2.) Defendant 

Tracy Dishno removed this matter to this Court on December 15, 2014 pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a) and (c). (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff now moves to remand 

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 6
 – 2 – 14-cv-02951 

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

this action to State court. (ECF No. 4.) 

 The Court finds this motion suitable for determination on the papers submitted 

and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1). For the following reasons, the 

Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 4). 

I. BACKGROUND 

 Plaintiff commenced this action on November 6, 2014 in San Diego Superior 

Court. (ECF No. 1-2 (“Compl.”).) Plaintiff alleges that “[o]n August 25, 2014, the 

San Diego Police Department and San Diego County Sheriff’s Department, by and 

through its agents and officers, maliciously, intentionally and knowingly engaged in 

a false arrest, false imprisonment and battery of Plaintiff by handcuffing him against 

his will and forcing him into an extremely hot, locked San Diego Police Department 

police car for over 6 hours without food, water, bathroom break or a telephone call.” 

(Id. at p. 2.) He further alleges the “San Diego Police Department and its agents 

engaged in threats and extortion attempts to get Plaintiff to talk,” and “the conditions 

inside the Sheriff’s Department holding cells was extreme, outrageous and unfit for 

human habitation.” (Id.) Plaintiff was released approximately 30 hours after he paid 

bail. (Id.) 

 Plaintiff filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging (1) 

Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department, Layton, Dishno, 

Botsford, Koehne, and Zimmerman violated his Fourth Amendment right “to be free 

from arrest without probable cause” (id. at pp. 22-26); (2) Defendants County of San 

Diego and William D. Gore violated the Fourth Amendment when he “was 

subjected to an extended period of pretrial detention without a prompt judicial 

determination of probable cause to believe that he committed a crime” (id. at p. 26); 

(3) municipal liability against County of San Diego and William D. Gore for having 

de facto unconstitutional policies, including the “routine failure[] to take pretrial 

detainees to be arraigned within 48 hours of their detention” (id. at pp. 27-28); (4) 

Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department, and Zimmerman 

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 6
 – 3 – 14-cv-02951 

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

violated his Fourth Amendment right when they brought “media representatives or 

other third parties into [his] home during the execution of [his] arrest” (id. at pp. 28-

29); (5) Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department and 

Zimmerman failed to maintain adequate and proper training for police officers (id. at 

pp. 29-31); and (6) Defendants City of San Diego, San Diego Police Department and 

Zimmerman, as a matter of custom, practice, and policy, failed to supervise and 

discipline police officers “to prevent, deter and punish wrongful arrests and 

detentions” (id. at pp. 29-31). 

 Plaintiff also brings state law causes of action for false imprisonment (id. at 

pp. 32-34), intentional infliction of emotional distress (id. at pp. 34-35), negligent 

infliction of emotional distress (id. at pp. 35-36); negligence (id. at pp. 36-37); and 

violation of California Civil Code § 52.1 (id. at pp. 37-43) relating to the events 

surrounding his August 25, 2014 arrest. Plaintiff also alleges, in the alternative, that 

California Penal Code section 128 is unconstitutional. (Id. at p. 39.) 

II. LEGAL STANDARD 

 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial 

decree.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies 

outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests 

upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also 

Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). 

Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); 

O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The ‘strong 

presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the 

burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citations 

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/11/15 Page 3 of 6
 – 4 – 14-cv-02951 

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

omitted); see also Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 

n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. 

 Any civil action “of which the district courts of the United States have 

original jurisdiction” may be removed to district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b), a defendant must file a notice of removal within 30 days after 

being served with a complaint alleging a basis for removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); 

Quality Loan Serv. Corp. v. 24702 Pallas Way, Mission Viejo, CA 92691, 635 F.3d 

1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). Each defendant has 30 days after service of the initial 

pleading to file a notice of removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(B); Destfino v. Reiswig, 

630 F.3d 952, 956 (9th Cir. 2011). “If defendants are served at different times, and a 

later-served defendant files a notice of removal, any earlier-served defendant may 

consent to the removal even though that earlier-served defendant did not previously 

initiate or consent to removal.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(C). 

 When there are multiple defendants, all defendants named in the complaint 

who have been properly served in the action must also join in or consent to the 

removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A); Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232 

(9th Cir. 1986). “One defendant’s timely removal notice containing an averment of 

the other defendants’ consent and signed by an attorney of record is sufficient.” 

Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1225 (9th Cir. 2009). 

 A motion to remand must be made within 30 days after the filing of the Notice 

of Removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Remand may be ordered either for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction or for any defect in removal procedure. Id.

III. DISCUSSION 

 Plaintiff does not dispute that the Court has original jurisdiction over his 

Section 1983 civil rights claims and may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his 

related state law claims. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1343(a)(3) & 1367(a); Acri v. Varian 

Assocs., Inc., 114 F.3d 999, 1000 (9th Cir. 1997). Rather, Plaintiff seeks to remand 

this action because of claimed procedural deficiencies in Defendant Dishno’s Notice 

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/11/15 Page 4 of 6
 – 5 – 14-cv-02951 

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

of Removal. 

 Plaintiff seeks to remand this matter on the following grounds: (1) the Notice 

of Removal was untimely as more than thirty days passed between the date the 

served Defendants knew about the lawsuit and the date of removal; (2) Plaintiff 

claims three of the Defendants – City of San Diego, William D. Gore, and San 

Diego County Sheriff’s Department – had not been served with the state court 

summons at the time of removal, thus Defendant Dishno had not obtained the 

consent of all defendants in order to properly effect removal; (3) additional 

defendants will be named in the future and they have not consented to removal; and 

(4) Defendant Dishno failed to attach “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders 

served upon such defendant or defendants” in the State court action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1446(a). (ECF No. 4 at p. 3.) 

A. Timeliness of Defendant Dishno’s Notice of Removal 

 Defendant Dishno, an officer with the San Diego Police Department, was 

formally served with a copy of the Summons and Complaint on December 4, 2014 

by personal service on Sergeant Jose Chavez. (ECF No. 4 (“Mot”) at p. 4; ECF No. 

14 (“Opp.”) at Ex. 2; ECF No. 1-2 at 49 (“Proof of Personal Service”).) Her Notice 

of Removal was filed on December 15, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) 

 Plaintiff claims Defendant Dishno received a copy of the Complaint earlier 

than December 4, 2014, when he emailed a draft copy of the Complaint to the City’s 

Community Relations Officer on September 4, 2014 and when he sent a copy of the 

filed Complaint to “the person in charge of the case for the City of San Diego” on 

November 6, 2014, thus triggering the removal period earlier. (Mot at p. 4.) 

However, “actual notice of the action is insufficient; rather, the defendant must be 

‘notified of the action, and brought under a court’s authority, by formal process,’ 

before the removal period begins to run.” Quality Loan Serv. Corp., 635 F.3d at 

1132 (quoting Murphy Bros. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344, 347 

(1999)). Defendant Dishno filed her Notice of Removal within 30 days of being 

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/11/15 Page 5 of 6
 – 6 – 14-cv-02951 

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

formally served. Accordingly, Defendant Dishno’s Notice of Removal was timely. 

B. Attaching Copies of Process and Pleading 

 A notice of removal shall include “a copy of all process, pleadings, and orders 

served upon such defendant or defendants” in the State court action. 28 U.S.C. § 

1446. Plaintiff contends that Defendant Dishno failed to attach discovery pleadings. 

(Mot. at pp. 6-7.) However, discovery does not constitute process, pleadings, or 

orders. Visicorp v. Software Arts, Inc., 575 F.Supp. 1528, 1531 (N.D. Cal. 1983), 

abrogated on other grounds by Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988). 

Therefore, Defendant Dishno was not required to include the documents with her 

Notice of Removal. 

C. Joinder or Consent of All Defendants 

 Only those defendants who have been properly served must join in or consent 

to the removal of the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A); Destfino, 630 F.3d at 956-

57. As of the date of removal, Defendants City of San Diego, County of San Diego, 

William D. Gore, and the San Diego County Sheriff’s Department had not yet been 

served. (See ECF No. 1-2 at 49 (“Proof of Personal Service”); Mot at p. 3; Opp. at 

p. 4.) Accordingly, those Defendants, and any defendants yet to be named, were not 

required to consent or join in the removal. 

IV. CONCLUSION & ORDER 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to remand 

(ECF No. 4). 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 11, 2015 

Case 3:14-cv-02951-BAS-MDD Document 23 Filed 03/11/15 Page 6 of 6