Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00314/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00314-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

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 motion was determined to be suitable for decision

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE )

OF CALIFORNIA, ) NO. CIV 05-0314 GEB PAN

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER*

)

v. ) 

)

EDWARD D. JONES & CO., L.P., )

a limited partnership, and ) 

DOES 1 through 1000, inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves to remand this action to the Superior Court

of the State of California for the County of Sacramento under 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c), arguing that federal subject matter jurisdiction is

lacking, and requesting costs incurred as a result of the removal. 

Defendant opposes the motion, contending that removal of this action

was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). 

MOTION TO REMAND

“[A] defendant who removes an action from state court to

federal district court bears the burden . . . of establishing that

removal was proper.” United Computer Systems, Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 298

Case 2:05-cv-00314-GEB-PAN Document 22 Filed 05/16/05 Page 1 of 4
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

F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir. 2002). In addition, “the removal statute is

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and doubt is resolved

in favor of remand.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d

1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). 

Defendant removed this action to federal court under 28

U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1), which provides:

A civil action or criminal prosecution commenced

in a State court against any of the following may

be removed by them to the district court of the

United States for the district and division

embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) The

United States or any agency thereof or any officer

(or any person acting under that officer) of the

United States or of any agency thereof, sued in an

official or individual capacity for any act under

color of such office or on account of any right,

title or authority claimed under any Act of

Congress for the apprehension or punishment of

criminals or the collection of the revenue.

“This provision is satisfied if the moving party can (1) demonstrate

that it acted under the direction of a federal officer, (2) raise a

federal defense to plaintiff[’s] claims, and (3) demonstrate a causal

nexus between plaintiff[’s] claims and acts it performed under color

of federal office.” Fung v. Abex Corp., 816 F. Supp. 569, 571-72

(N.D. Cal. 1992) (citing Mesa v. California, 489 U.S. 121, 124-25,

134-35 (1989)). 

“Overall, the ‘inquiry under the federal officer removal

statute is the extent to which the Defendant acted under federal

direction at the time it engaged in the acts underlying the

Plaintiff[’s] lawsuit.’” AIG Europe (UK) Ltd. v. McDonnell Douglas

Corp., 2003 WL 257702, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2003) (citing

Thompson v. Cmty. Ins. Co., No. C-3-98-323, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS

21725, at *19 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 3, 1999)). “A majority of courts have

held that the federal official must have ‘direct and detailed control’

Case 2:05-cv-00314-GEB-PAN Document 22 Filed 05/16/05 Page 2 of 4
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 Although Plaintiff argues it is entitled to “costs,” it

fails to specify what costs are involved. Plaintiff asserted it

has incurred $12,500.00 in expenses, which represents the entire 

(continued...)

3

over the defendant.” Fung, 816 F. Supp. at 572 (citing Ryan v. Dow

Chemical Co., 781 F. Supp. 934, 947 (E.D.N.Y. 1992)). “If [a]

corporation establishes ‘only that the relevant acts occurred under

the general auspices of’ a federal officer, such as being a

participant in a regulated industry, they are not entitled to §

1442(a)(1) removal.” Fung, 816 F. Supp. at 572 (citing Ryan, 781 F.

Supp. at 947) and Bakalis v. Crossland Sav. Bank, 781 F. Supp. 140,

144-45 (E.D.N.Y. 1991)). 

The conclusory assertions in Defendant’s removal petition

fail to justify removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1). Therefore,

Plaintiff’s remand motion is granted.

REQUEST FOR COSTS

Plaintiff also seeks costs for the improper removal under 28

U.S.C. § 1447(c). “An order remanding [a] 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). “[W]hen a

defendant's removal, while ‘fairly supportable,’ was wrong as a matter

of law,” an award of fees is permissible. Balcorta v. Twentieth

Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 n.6 (9th Cir. 2000).

Plaintiff need not show that removal was done in bad faith. Moore v.

Permanente Medical Group, Inc., 981 F.2d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Plaintiff states that “by the time of the hearing on this

motion the State will have incurred at least $12,500.00 in expenses,

representing attorneys’ fees incurred in connection with the motion to

remand.”1 (Pl.’s Remand Mot. at 10 (citing Jeffrey Rich Decl. ¶ 2.).)

Case 2:05-cv-00314-GEB-PAN Document 22 Filed 05/16/05 Page 3 of 4
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

(...continued)

amount sought. (Rich Decl. ¶ 2.) 

4

 The only evidence Plaintiff submits on this issue is its counsel’s

conclusory declaration that he spent at least thirty hours drafting

the motion to remand and anticipated spending at least an additional

twenty hours in connection with oral argument, and that he bills

$250.00 per hour. (Rich Decl. ¶ 6.) Since Plaintiff fails to satisfy

its “‘burden of submitting detailed time records justifying the hours

claimed to have been expended,’” Plaintiff’s request is denied. Keith

v. Volpe, 833 F.2d 850, 859 (9th Cir. 1987) (quoting Hensley v.

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 433 (1983)). 

CONCLUSION

For the stated reasons, Plaintiff’s remand motion is granted

and Plaintiff’s request for costs is denied. The Clerk of the Court

is directed to remand this action to the Superior Court of the State

of California for the County of Sacramento. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 13, 2005

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00314-GEB-PAN Document 22 Filed 05/16/05 Page 4 of 4