Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02649/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-02649-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARY A. JASSO, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITIZENS TELECOMMUNICATIONS

COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, INC.,

et al.,

Defendants.

CIV. S-05-2649 GEB PAN PS

ORDER 

-o0oPlaintiffs move to remand this action to state court;

defendants oppose and move to dismiss for failure to state a

claim. The February 15, 2006, hearing scheduled on these matters

is vacated. The motion to dismiss is submitted on the papers.

Plaintiffs are employees and family members of employees who

worked seasonally for the California Department of Forestry and

Fire Protection at the fire lookout tower on Likely Mountain in

Shasta County. Defendants “owned, licensed, used, managed,

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 64 Filed 02/10/06 Page 1 of 3
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

1 See, Complaint, p. 1, lines 2, 22; p. 5, line 16; p. 7, line 24; p.

8, line 9; p. 9, lines 8, 22, 25-26.

2 See, Complaint, p. 6, lines 21-22.

3 Complaint, p. 6, lines 26-28, and p. 7, lines 1-9.

4 Complaint, p. 7, lines 3-4.

2

maintained and shared jointly and severally” the

telecommunications equipment installed at Likely Mountain

Telecommunications. On October 14, 2005, plaintiffs filed their

complaint in the Lassen County Superior Court alleging defendants

neglected to protect plaintiffs from radiation exposure emitted

by defendants’ telecommunications equipment. 

Defendant Modoc RSA Limited Partnership, dba Verizon

Wireless, timely removed the action to this court December 30,

2005, within thirty days of being served process November 30,

2005. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Removal included the express

consents of all other defendants. 

This court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367

(supplemental jurisdiction over pendant state claims).

The complaint asserts generally that plaintiffs’ causes of

action arise under both state and federal law,1 and specifically

cites the Federal Communications Commission,2 the Occupational

Safety and Health Act,3 and Federal Hazardous Substance Act.4

Plaintiffs’ reliance on federal law is underscored by their

request the court take judicial notice “of laws that defendants

allegedly violated,” which cites over ten federal statutes and

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 64 Filed 02/10/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

regulations.

Plaintiffs oppose removal on the ground this action

allegedly arose under California’s workers’ compensation laws,

and is therefore expressly nonremovable under 28 U.S.C. §

1445(c). However, plaintiffs do not name California or allege a

violation of state workers’ compensation laws, and defendants

assert there is no employment relationship or history between the

plaintiffs and any of the defendants.

Plaintiffs also assert that 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a) precludes

removal of this action because defendants include a railroad. 

However, 28 U.S.C. § 1445(a) prevents the removal only of claims

under the Federal Employees Liability Act by employees of a

railroad common carrier at the time of the employee’s injury. 45

U.S.C. § 51 et seq. These are not the claims presented by

plaintiffs.

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ motion to remand this action to

state court is denied. 

So ordered.

Dated: February 9, 2006. 

 /s/ Peter A. Nowinski 

 PETER A. NOWINSKI

 Magistrate Judge

Case 2:05-cv-02649-GEB-EFB Document 64 Filed 02/10/06 Page 3 of 3