Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05793/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-05793-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
American Express Company
Defendant
Yongquan Liu
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YONGQUAN LIU,

Plaintiff,

 v.

AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY and DOES 1

to 10,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C-06-05793 SC

ORDER REMANDING

ACTION TO STATE COURT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Yongquan Liu ("Plaintiff") brought this action

against Defendant, the American Express Company ("Defendant"). 

For the reasons stated herein, the Court REMANDS the action to the

Alameda County Superior Court. 

II. BACKGROUND

On August 16, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Complaint alleging

three causes of action for Defendant's failure to rescind a charge

on Plaintiff's credit card. See Compl., Docket No. 1. Plaintiff

claims to have suffered damages as a result of Defendant's

inaction, which led to a decline in Plaintiff's credit score. Id.

at ¶¶ 10-11. Defendant removed the case to federal court under 28

U.S.C. § 1441(b) based on the presence of a federal question. 

Soon thereafter Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss and Strike

Case 3:06-cv-05793-SC Document 13 Filed 11/22/06 Page 1 of 3
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 2

Portions of the Complaint. Docket No. 1, 4. Plaintiff opposed

the Motion and Defendant filed a reply. Docket No. 8, 11. 

In its Motion to Dismiss, Defendant asserted that Plaintiff

had failed to state a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act,

15 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq. (the "FCRA"). See Mot. to Dismiss. In

its Opposition, Plaintiff explained that it intended its first

cause of action to allege a violation of a California statute,

codified in California Civil Code sections 1747.50 and 1747.70,

which "recognizes a common law tort of defamation of credit." 

Pl.'s Opp'n. Plaintiff states that Defendant misconstrued the

Complaint and thus had no legitimate grounds for removal. Id. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

“If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Thus, a district court has “a

duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed

action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” 

United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d

960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). In other words, the Court may remand a

removed case sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject

matter jurisdiction. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n v.

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting

a distinction between procedural and jurisdictional defects and

that a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”).

//

//

Case 3:06-cv-05793-SC Document 13 Filed 11/22/06 Page 2 of 3
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 3

IV. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has recently explained that its first cause of

action invokes the California Civil Code, not the Federal FCRA. 

Pl.'s Oppn. As a result of this clarification, the Court

recognizes that all three causes of action relate to state law

claims. In the Ninth Circuit, "[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may

not be waived, and, indeed, we have held that the district court

must remand if it lacks jurisdiction." Kelton Arms, 346 F.3d

1190, 1192. Since Plaintiff has only asserted state law claims,

there are no grounds for federal question jurisdiction and the

case must be remanded. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the case is REMANDED to Alameda

County Superior Court. All pending motions are VACATED.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 22, 2006 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-05793-SC Document 13 Filed 11/22/06 Page 3 of 3