Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04986/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-04986-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

United States District Court

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARJIT BHAMBRA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JOHN M. TRUE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 09-4986 CRB

ORDER REMANDING CASE

This action, one of various actions initiated by Plaintiff in both federal and state

courts, was purportedly “removed” to this Court on October 20, 2009. However, removal

was clearly improper. First, a Notice of Removal must be filed within thirty days of the

Defendant’s receipt of the complaint. This complaint, however, was apparently filed on

February 1, 2009, and removed on October 20, 2009. This is clearly untimely. Second,

federal law provides that only Defendants may remove an action to federal court. See 28

U.S.C. § 1446. As evidenced by the state complaint attached to the notice of removal, Harjit

Bhambra was the Plaintiff in the state case. Hence, he is not entitled to remove it to federal

court. This conclusion is inescapable notwithstanding the fact that Plaintiff has hand edited

the caption of the state complaint to replace the named defendants with his own name. One

cannot become a defendant in such a manner. The substance of the complaint clearly reflects 

Case 3:09-cv-04986-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/06/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

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\2009\4986\order remanding.wpd 2

the fact that Mr. Bhambra was the plaintiff in the state action. Third, there is no basis for

federal subject matter jurisdiction. There is no diversity among the parties, and the complaint

dose not raise a federal issue.

Typically the proper course of action where a case has been improperly removed is to

remand the action to state court. Defendants, however, inform this Court that the state action

from which this “removal” arose has already been voluntarily dismissed by Plaintiff. Hence,

they argue, this case cannot be remanded, because there is no pending case in the first place. 

Be that as it may, the one thing that is clear to this Court is the complete lack of federal

subject matter jurisdiction. Therefore, because this case comes to this Court through a notice

of removal, the case is ordered to be REMANDED to state court. If Defendants are correct

that there is no ongoing action, this Court fails to see how this order will prejudice them in

any way. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2010 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-04986-CRB Document 13 Filed 04/06/10 Page 2 of 2