Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01717/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01717-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE GOLDEN 1 CREDIT UNION, Case No. 1:06-cv-1717 OWW TAG

Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT

vs. MOTION FOR REMAND

(Doc. 38)

H&B GROUP, INC., dba NISSAN OF 

BAKERSFIELD, et al., 

Defendants.

 /

On October 12, 2006, Plaintiff Golden 1 Credit Union (“Plaintiff”), filed a lawsuit against

Defendant H&B Group, Inc., dba Nissan of Bakersfield (“Defendant”) in the Superior Court of

Sacramento County, asserting causes of action for breach of contract, fraud by concealment, fraud

by intentional misrepresentation, and unfair competition in violation of California Business and

Professions Code § 17200. (Doc. 1, Exhibit A, Complaint). Defendant timely removed the action

to this Court, asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 1). On February 2, 2007, Plaintiff

filed a motion to remand. (Doc. 20). 

On April 27, 2007, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that

recommended this case be remanded to the state court. (Doc. 38). The Report and Recommendation,

which was served on all parties, contained notice that objections or replies thereto were to be filed

within fifteen (15) days. (Id.). On May 8, 2007, Defendant objected to the Report and

Recommendation. (Doc. 39). On May 17, 2007, Plaintiff filed its response to Defendant’s

objections. (Doc. 40). On May 18, 2007, Defendant filed a reply to the response. (Doc. 41). 

\\\

Case 1:06-cv-01717-OWW -TAG Document 43 Filed 05/30/07 Page 1 of 2
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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 72(b), and Local Rule 72-304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case.

Having carefully evaluated the entire file, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation is

supported by the record and by the Magistrate Judge’s analysis. Defendant removed this action

alleging that there was federal subject matter jurisdiction because Plaintiff is subject to federal laws

and regulations. Absent complete preemption by these federal laws, which is not present in the

instant case, there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction unless a federal question is raised on the

face of the well-pled complaint. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425,

2429 (1987); Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63-64, 107 S. Ct. 1542, 1546 (1987);

Donald v. The Golden 1 Credit Union, 839 F.Supp. 1394 (E.D. Cal. 1993). Here, Plaintiff’s

complaint does not allege any claims that are founded on a federal claim or right, and its right to

relief does not depend on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Defendant fails to

appreciate that the possibility that its defense will raise federal questions or the state court may have

to construe and apply federal law does not establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly,

remand of this case is appropriate. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Report and Recommendation (Doc. 38), is ADOPTED IN FULL; 

2. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand this action to the Sacramento County Superior Court, (Doc.

20), is GRANTED; and

3. The Clerk of this Court is DIRECTED to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 26, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01717-OWW -TAG Document 43 Filed 05/30/07 Page 2 of 2