Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07000/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-07000-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1442 Petition for Removal

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

KUANG-BAO P. OU-YOUNG,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAWRENCE E. STONE, Santa Clara 

County Assessor; JEANETTE TONINI, 

Senior Assessment Clerk; and COUNTY OF 

SANTA CLARA,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO REMAND

[Re: ECF 16]

Plaintiff Kuang-Bao P. Ou-Young filed this action in the Santa Clara County Superior 

Court on October 17, 2019, asserting claims against Defendants Lawrence E. Stone, Santa Clara 

County Assessor (“Stone”); Jeanette Tonini, Senior Assessment Clerk (“Tonini”); the County of 

Santa Clara (“the County”); and District Judge Edward J. Davila (“Judge Davila”). See Notice of 

Removal Exh. 4 (Complaint), ECF 1-4. United States removed the action to federal district court 

on behalf of Judge Davila. See Notice of Removal, ECF 1. Plaintiff moves to remand the action 

to the state court.

Plaintiff’s motion is without merit. The United States removed the action pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1442(a)(3), which provides for removal of state court actions asserted against “[a]ny 

officer of the courts of the United States, for or relating to any act under color of office or in the 

performance of his duties.” See Notice of Removal, Case No. 19-cv-07000-BLF, ECF 1. 

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 1 of 2
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Plaintiff’s claims against Judge Davila arise from Judge Davila’s performance of his judicial 

duties with respect to a case assigned to him. See Notice of Removal Exh. 4 (Complaint) at 2-3, 

ECF 1-4. Thus, removal was proper.

Plaintiff argues that the United States should not have removed the action because it 

should have known that the complaint failed to state a claim against Judge Davila. Plaintiff cites 

no authority in support of that argument. 

Moreover, as the County and Stone point out, Plaintiff alleges a federal constitutional 

claim. “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff alleges a claim 

for “Unreasonable Seizures” in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. See Notice of Removal Exh. 4 (Complaint) at 2-3, ECF 1-4. Because it has original 

jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims, the Court retains jurisdiction after dismissing Judge Davila. 

The motion to remand is DENIED.1

Dated: December 5, 2019

______________________________________

BETH LABSON FREEMAN

United States District Judge

 

1 The County and Stone ask the Court to dismiss the present action as duplicative of another action 

pending before the undersigned, Ou-Young v. Lawrence Stone, et al., Case No. 19-cv-07231-BLF. 

An opposition brief is not an appropriate procedural vehicle to seek dismissal of an action, and 

thus the request for dismissal has not been considered.

Case 5:19-cv-07000-BLF Document 27 Filed 12/05/19 Page 2 of 2