Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00510/USCOURTS-cand-4_16-cv-00510-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Etihad Airways
Defendant
Government of Abu Dhabi
Defendant
Manjunath Jagannatharao
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

Case No. 16-cv-00510-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

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

MANJUNATH JAGANNATHARAO,

Plaintiff,

v.

ETIHAD AIRWAYS,

Defendant.

Case No. 16-cv-00510-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

REMAND

(Re: Docket No. 21)

Defendant Etihad Airways removed this case from state small claims court on January 29 

of this year.

1

 Plaintiff Manjunath Jagannatharao nevertheless obtained a default judgment against 

Etihad in the state court action,2but Etihad successfully petitioned the state court to vacate that 

judgment.3 Jagannatharao now moves to remand this action back to state court pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1447(c).

4

The motion is DENIED for two reasons. First, Section 1447(c) requires such a motion to 

“be made within 30 days after the filing of the notice of removal.” Second, and more importantly, 

because Etihad “is wholly owned by the government of Abu Dhabi, a political subdivision of the 

 

1

See Docket No. 1.

2

See Docket No. 16.

3

See Docket No. 19.

4

See Docket No. 21. More specifically, Jagannatharao sent the court a letter containing a request

to remand the case, but the court construes the pro se pleading as a motion pursuant to the 

applicable statute. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 595-96 (1972).

Case 4:16-cv-00510-KAW Document 22 Filed 05/10/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 16-cv-00510-PSG

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO REMAND

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 Arab Emirates,”

5

Etihad qualifies as a “foreign state” as defined in the Foreign Sovereign 

Immunities Act,

6

and foreign states may remove any civil action from state to federal court.

7

 This 

court therefore has jurisdiction over the complaint,

8

and remand is not warranted. The court’s 

previous order to show cause9remains in effect.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 10, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

5 Docket No. 1 at ¶ 5.

6

28 U.S.C. § 1603(a), (b)(2).

7

See id. § 1441(d).

8

See id. § 1330(a); see also EIE Guam Corp. v. Long Term Credit Bank of Japan, Ltd., 322 F.3d 

635, 647 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Phaneuf v. Republic of Indon., 106 F.3d 302, 304 (9th Cir. 

1997)) (“[T]he FSIA ‘is the sole basis of subject matter jurisdiction over suits involving foreign 

states and their agencies and instrumentalities.’”).

9

See Docket No. 20.

Case 4:16-cv-00510-KAW Document 22 Filed 05/10/16 Page 2 of 2