Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00168/USCOURTS-azd-2_15-cv-00168-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 448
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights - Education
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Jennifer Massimilla, et al.,

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

Higley Unified School District No. 60, 

Defendant.

No. CV-15-00168-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 This case arises out of a bullying incident involving Plaintiffs’ child at a schoolsponsored science camp. In November 2014, Plaintiffs filed suit on behalf of their minor 

child in state court. The complaint alleges three counts: negligence, negligence per se, 

and violation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and related provisions of 

Arizona law. Defendant removed the case to this Court. Doc. 1. 

 Plaintiffs have filed a motion to remand. Doc. 8. The matter is fully briefed. The 

Court will grant the motion and remand the case to state court.1

 

I. Removal and Remand Principles. 

 Pursuant to the removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a civil case brought in state 

court over which the federal district courts have original jurisdiction may be removed to 

the federal court in the district where the action is pending. The statute is to be strictly 

 

1

 Plaintiffs’ request for oral argument is denied. The issues are fully briefed, and the Court finds that oral argument will not aid in the resolution of this matter. See LR 

Civ. 7.2(f); Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b). 

Case 2:15-cv-00168-DGC Document 12 Filed 03/27/15 Page 1 of 4
- 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 

construed against removal jurisdiction. See Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 

537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941). 

There is “strong presumption” against removal, which “means that the defendant always 

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 

564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal jurisdiction must be rejected, and the case remanded to 

state court, “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id.; see

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

II. Analysis. 

 Defendant removed this case on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, arguing 

that Count III asserts a federal cause of action. Plaintiffs assert that the case should be 

remanded because Count III does not assert any claim for relief; rather, it merely reserves 

Plaintiffs’ rights to “conduct appropriate proceedings under the IDEA and under other 

provisions of law.” Doc. 8 at 5. 

 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 

511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts have original 

jurisdiction over cases involving a federal question, that is, cases “arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” The federal issue “must be ‘a 

substantial one, indicating a serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to 

be inherent in a federal forum.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 

582 F.3d 1083, 1086-87 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. 

Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005)). 

 “[T]he mere reference of a federal statute in a pleading will not convert a state law 

claim into a federal cause of action if the federal statute is not a necessary element of the 

state law claim and no preemption exists.” Easton v. Crossland Mortgage Corp., 114 

F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997); see Lippitt v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d 

1033, 1040 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is a long-settled understanding that the mere presence of a 

federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal-question 

Case 2:15-cv-00168-DGC Document 12 Filed 03/27/15 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

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 

jurisdiction.”) (quotation marks and citation omitted). 

 Count III alleges the following: 

91. The principal purpose of the Individuals with Disabilities Education 

Act is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a 

free appropriate public education that emphasizes a special education and 

related services designed to meet their unique needs [and] to ensure that the 

rights of children with disabilities and parents of such children are 

protected.” 

92. The school district failed to ensure that [child] was provided with 

services to meet his unique needs and failed to ensure the protection of the 

rights of [child] and his parents to competent, respectful, fair treatment. 

 

93. Under the IDEA, [child] and his parents are entitled to an 

opportunity to present complaints concerning any aspect of the school 

district’s provision of a free appropriate public education and an 

opportunity for an impartial due process hearing with respect to any such 

complaints. 

94. [Child] and his parents reserve their right to conduct appropriate 

proceedings under the IDEA’s provisions and under the corresponding 

provisions of Arizona statutory and administrative law, including under 

Ariz. Admin. Code §§ R7-2-405, et seq. 

Doc. 1, ¶¶ 91-94. 

 The Court finds that remand is appropriate. The allegations quoted above make 

clear that Count III merely references the IDEA; it does not assert a violation of any 

provision of the IDEA or seek relief under the statute. Defendant does not dispute this 

characterization of Count III, and the Court finds no reason to construe it otherwise. 

Defendant has failed to meet its burden in proving that removal was appropriate. 

 IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Plaintiffs’ motion to remand (Doc. 8) is granted. 

 2. The Rule 16 Case Management Conference set for March 27, 2015 at 4:30 

p.m. is vacated. 

 

Case 2:15-cv-00168-DGC Document 12 Filed 03/27/15 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

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. The Clerk is directed to remand this case to state court. 

 Dated this 27th day of March, 2015. 

Case 2:15-cv-00168-DGC Document 12 Filed 03/27/15 Page 4 of 4