Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02192/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02192-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

SYDNEY JAY HALL, MARTIN ELORDE and

EMMANUEL PACQUIAO,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

MURAD MUHAMMAD, RUDOLFO

NAZARIO , ROBERTO NAZARIO, and

PHILIPPINE BOXING LLC, 

Defendants.

 /

No. C-05-2192 CRB

ORDER DISMISSING CLAIM AND

REMANDING ACTION

This lawsuit arises out of a controversy concerning representation of a professional

boxer from the Philippines. Plaintiff Sydney Hall, a citizen of California, sues defendants

Murad Muhammad, a citizen of New Jersey, Rudolfo Nazario, a citizen of the Philippines,

Roberto Nazario, a permanent resident of California, and Philippine Boxing LLC. After

considering the pleadings filed in this case, as well as related case number 03-5095, the Court

concludes that the complaint does not state a federal claim and therefore the action must be

remanded to state court.

BACKGROUND

A. The Initial Federal Court Proceedings

On November 24, 2003, Hall, a lawyer representing himself, filed a complaint in this

Court asserting state law causes of action for an accounting and tortious interference, and a

federal cause of action for violation of the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act. Hall

Case 3:05-cv-02192-CRB Document 45 Filed 06/29/05 Page 1 of 4
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

2

claimed federal jurisdiction based upon diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. section

1332, even though Hall and defendant Roberto Nazario are citizens of California for

diversity jurisdiction purposes. When defendant Muhammad moved to dismiss Hall’s

complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, Hall filed a memorandum agreeing with

defendant Muhammad’s assertion that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction. 

The complaint, however, also included a claim under the Muhammad Ali Boxing

Reform Act, potentially creating federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The 

Act creates a private federal cause of action for boxers who are injured in violation of the

Act. See 15 U.S.C. §6309(d). Hall, however, is not a boxer. Moreover, in his nonopposition to defendant Muhammad’s motion to dismiss, Hall declared that, even though his

complaint alleged a violation of the Muhammed Ali Boxing Reform Act, “there is no federal

question . . . [because] the complaint requests no recovery of damages or specific relief under

the act.” See Plaintiff’s Non-Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of

Subject Matter Jurisdiction at 3. The Court dismissed Hall’s claim under the Muhammad Ali

Boxing Reform Act with prejudice because he, as a non-boxer, does not have a cause of

action under the Act.

As there was no longer federal question jurisdiction and there was no diversity

jurisdiction, the Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the

remaining state law claims without prejudice.

B. The State Court Proceedings

Hall thereafter continued to prosecute nearly identical claims in a state court action

that Hall filed while the initial federal action was pending. Declaration of Sydney Jay Hall

(June 1, 2005) at ¶ 8. At some point Hall learned that Emmanuel Pacquiao, the boxer at the

center of the dispute, had fired defendants Muhammad and Rodolfo Nazario. On April 28,

2005, Hall amended his complaint to “bring in” Pacquiao, and Pacquiao’s manager, Martin

Elorde, as plaintiffs. Id. at ¶ 12. He also added a claim for violation of the Muhammed Ali

Boxing Reform Act on behalf of Pacquiao and Elorde. See Amended Complaint. He could

not make the claim on his own behalf as the Court had previously dismissed such a claim

Case 3:05-cv-02192-CRB Document 45 Filed 06/29/05 Page 2 of 4
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

3

with prejudice.

C. The Present Federal Court Proceedings

In light of Hall’s addition of a federal claim, defendants removed the state action to

this Court, the action that is presently pending. Hall has moved to remand the action on the

ground that Pacquiao, who Hall named as a plaintiff, is also a nominal defendant and did not

join in the removal. Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.

DISCUSSION

The only basis for the removal of the complaint and this Court’s jurisdiction is the

addition of the claim for violation of the Muhammed Ali Boxing Reform Act on behalf of

Pacquiao and Elorde. It is apparent from the removed complaint and Hall’s declaration,

however, that Pacquiao and Elorde are not plaintiffs in this action and have not made such a

claim. First, the complaint itself alleges that Pacquiao has not joined Hall as a plaintiff. 

Amended Complaint § 68. Second, Hall states in his declaration that Pacquiao is represented

by attorneys other than Hall, and that the attorneys advised Hall that Pacquiao will not join

Hall as a plaintiff. Third, the amended complaint is signed by Hall, alone, as plaintiff, and

the caption states that Hall is acting as an attorney for himself, alone. As neither Pacquiao

nor Elorde have appeared as plaintiffs in this action, and as neither has consented to Hall

making claims on their behalf, the claims under the Muhammed Ali Boxing Reform Act are

DISMISSED. In addition, Elorde cannot state a claim under the Act because he is not a

boxer.

As there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction, and as there is no diversity

jurisdiction, the Court, again, declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and will instead

remand the remaining state law claims.

Hall’s motion for attorneys’ fees is denied as frivolous. Hall caused the removal by

amending the complaint to add plaintiffs who had not consented to his representation or to

joining as plaintiffs. Such lack of consent is not surprising since Hall also claims he joined

Pacquiao as a defendant.

//

Case 3:05-cv-02192-CRB Document 45 Filed 06/29/05 Page 3 of 4
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

4

CONCLUSION

The claims under the Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act are DISMISSED and this

action is REMANDED to state court. Hall’s request for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 29, 2005 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02192-CRB Document 45 Filed 06/29/05 Page 4 of 4