Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03338/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-03338-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE KEVIN VERNON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, et al.

Defendants.

 /

No. C 06-03338 CRB

ORDER OF REMAND

On April 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a complaint in state court alleging four intentional

tort causes of action relating to his arrest in San Francisco on March 5, 2005. Defendant City

and County of San Francisco removed the action on May 19, 2006, based on the Court’s

original federal question jurisdiction. On June 2, 2006, the Court issued an Order to Show

Cause as to the Court’s original jurisdiction.

On June 9, 2006, defendant responded to the Order to Show Cause with a declaration

from counsel explaining that, while plaintiff’s original Complaint did not include any federal

claims, plaintiff’s counsel had represented to her that he would be filing an amended

complaint including federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 no later than

June 16, 2006. Decl. of Monica F. Wiley ¶ 7. While that may indeed be the case, the Court

must determine removal jurisdiction at the time the Complaint is filed. See Libhart v. Santa

Monica Diary Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979). If federal question jurisdiction does
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2006\3338\orderofremand.wpd 2

not exist, the Court cannot entertain an amendment to the Complaint in order to confer

jurisdiction. Id. 

Here, the Court did not have federal question jurisdiction at the time of removal,

thereby rendering a putative amendment irrelevant to a determination fo the Court’s federal

question jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this action

is hereby REMANDED to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2006

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE