Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01442/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01442-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRA L. STOKER, et. al,

 Plaintiffs,

 v. 

JOHN MEDEIROS SR., et al.,

 Defendants.

1:05-CV-01442 OWW SMS

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S

MOTION TO REMAND. 

I. INTRODUCTION

Before the court for decision is Ira L. Stoker and Karen

Stoker's ("Plaintiffs" or "the Stokers") motion to remand this

case to the Kern County Superior Court. (Doc. 5, filed Dec. 13,

2005.) Defendant John Medeiros has filed several documents,

apparently in opposition to the motion for remand, including a

"Motion to Maintain Class Action" (Doc. 9-2) and a "Notice of

claim of Unconstitutionality of State Law" (Docs. 18, 19 & 20). 

The Stokers also filed a request for an extension of time in

which to file a responsive pleading to Defendants' crosscomplaint in the underlying action. (Doc. 11.) Mr. Medeiros

filed a motion to strike this request. (Doc. 7.) This filing

also contains some arguments in opposition to the motion for

remand. (Id.) 

Case 1:05-cv-01442-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 02/17/06 Page 1 of 6
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

II. BACKGROUND

On September 9, 2005, the Stokers filed a complaint in the

Kern County Superior Court against Mr. Medeiros. (See Doc. 1-1,

Notice of Removal.) The complaint requested damages resulting

from libel. Specifically, the Stokers allege that Mr. Medeiros

publicly paraded a sign (in both English and Spanish) in front of

the Kern County Superior Court, located at 1215 Truxtun Avenue,

Bakersfield, California, stating that "Ira L. Stoker, a

Bakersfield Attorney, Stole Money From a 5 Year Old Disabled

Handicapped Girl[.] Could you be next[?]" (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7.) The

Stokers allege that the sign "is libelous on its face [and]

clearly exposes [the Stokers] to hatred, contempt, ridicule and

obloquy because it charges plaintiff with having committed a

crime of stealing." (Id. at ¶8.) The summons and complaint were

served on Mr. Medeiros on October 21, 2005. 

On November 7, 2005, Mr. Medeiros filed a cross-complaint in

the state court, asserting various federal causes of action,

including violation of his first amendment rights, deprivation of

civil rights. (Doc. 1-1 at 28-30). The cross-complaint mentions

the term "class action" several times. (Id.)

On November 10, 2005, Mr. Medeiros filed a notice of his

intent to remove the case to federal court with the Kern County

Superior Court. On November 16, 2005, Mr. Medeiros filed a

notice of removal in the United States District Court for the

Eastern District of California - Fresno Division. (Doc. 1.) On

December 13, 2005, the Stokers' moved to remand the case to

superior court. (Doc. 5.) 

Case 1:05-cv-01442-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 02/17/06 Page 2 of 6
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

III. STANDARD OF REVIEW

Motions to remand are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1447, which

provides in pertinent part:

A motion to remand the case on the basis of any defect

other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction must be

made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of

removal under section 1446(a). If at any time before

final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

remanded. An order remanding the case may require

payment of just costs and any actual expenses,

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the

removal....

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IV. DISCUSSION

A. Timeliness of Motion to Remand.

The Stokers' motion to remand was filed on December 13,

2005, within thirty (30) days of the removal on November 16,

2005. Accordingly, the motion for remand is timely. 

B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction.

A district court may remand to state court a case that

has been removed to the district court if at any time it appears

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c). A motion to remand on the basis of any defect

in the removal procedure must be made within 30 days of the

filing of the notice of removal. Id. 

Federal courts construe removal statutes strictly in order

to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v.

Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941); Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564,

566 (9th Cir. 1992). Removal is generally proper when the

district courts have original jurisdiction over the action. See

Case 1:05-cv-01442-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 02/17/06 Page 3 of 6
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

28 U.S.C. § 1441; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir.

1996). Jurisdiction must be determined from the face of the

complaint, Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

(1987), and it must be clear from the face of the complaint under

the well-pleaded complaint rule that federal subject matter

jurisdiction exists. Oklahoma Tax Comm'n. v. Graham, 489 U.S.

838, 840-41 (1989)(per curiam). Upon motion for remand, the

party seeking removal to federal court has the burden to prove

the basis of federal jurisdiction. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

Here, the complaint filed by the Stokers in Kern County

Superior Court provides no basis for federal jurisdiction. 

Rather, it presents a libel claim under state law. As the

parties are both citizens of California, there is no diversity of

citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (district court has original

jurisdiction of civil actions where amount in controversy exceeds

$75,000 and there is a total diversity of citizenship of the

parties). The Stoker's complaint contains no other claims that

“arise under” federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (district court

has original jurisdiction of civil actions arising under the

Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States).

Defendant now captions the case as a “class action”

redesignated himself as “plaintiff.” Although the term "class

action" several times in the cross complaint filed in the state

court as well as in many of the removal papers filed in this

case. Defendant provides absolutely no basis upon which he could

maintain a class action in federal court. Even if he could do

so, the well-pleaded complaint rule nevertheless bars removal of

the underlying state court lawsuit. Defendant’s cross-complaint

Case 1:05-cv-01442-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 02/17/06 Page 4 of 6
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

5

in the underlying action refers to federal constitutional rights. 

These rights are equally protectable in a state court. 

Defendant’s claim for relief does not create independent federal

jurisdiction. Holmes Group Inc., v. Vornado Air Circulation

Systems Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002).

Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and deference is

paid to the choice of forum in which plaintiff intends to

litigate the claims. Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., 114

F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997); Schroeder v. Trans World Airlines,

Inc., 702 F.2d 189, 190 (9th Cir. 1983). A plaintiff may avoid

federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law. Easton,

114 F.3d at 982 (citing Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392).

The Stokers' motion to remand is GRANTED.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 1:05-cv-01442-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 02/17/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

C. The Stokers' Request for an Extension of Time to

Respond to Mr. Medeiros' Cross-Complaint.

As discussed, the Stokers filed a request for an extension

of time in which to file a responsive pleading to Defendants'

cross-complaint in the underlying action. (Doc. 11.) Mr.

Medeiros filed a motion to strike this request. (Doc. 7.) 

Because the Stokers' motion to remand has been granted, this

court no longer has jurisdiction over this case or these

requests/motions. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, this case is REMANDED to

the Superior Court for the County of Kern.

SO ORDERED

Dated: February 17, 2006

/s/ OLIVER W. WANGER

____________________________

OLIVER W. WANGER

United States District Judge

Case 1:05-cv-01442-OWW -SMS Document 24 Filed 02/17/06 Page 6 of 6