Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02014/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Adams
Plaintiff
Saundra Adams
Plaintiff
Jason Baldwin
Defendant
Kim Beradi
Defendant
City of Citrus Heights
Defendant
Creative Frontiers School, Inc.
Plaintiff
Stefani Daniell
Defendant
Nicole Garring
Defendant
Cynthia Higgins
Plaintiff
Marian Kubiak
Defendant
Joseph Rangel
Defendant
Lori Rodriguez
Defendant
State of California
Defendant

Document Text:

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

ROBERT ADAMS, SAUNDRA 

ADAMS, CYNTHIA HIGGINS 

and CREATIVE FRONTIERS 

SCHOOL, INC., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

CITY OF CITRUS HEIGHTS, 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DETECTIVE JOSEPH RANGEL, 

DETECTIVE NICOLE GARRING, DETECTIVE JASON 

BALDWIN, KIM BERADI, 

STEFANI DANIELL, INVESTIGATOR LORI RODRIGUEZ, 

MARIAN KUBIAK, and DOES 1-

100 inclusive, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:16-cv-02014-KJM-DB 

ORDER 

1 This matter is before the court on defendants’ two motions to remand 

2 the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court. The first remand motion 

3 was filed by defendants Jason Baldwin, City of Citrus Heights, Stefani Dan4 iell, Nicole Garring, Joseph Rangel (collectively, “removing defendants”), 

5 ECF No. 8, and the second remand motion was filed by the California De6 partment of Social Services (“DSS”) and Lori Rodriguez (collectively, “state 

7 defendants”), ECF No. 10. Plaintiffs do not oppose this motion. The court 

8 submitted the matter without a hearing on November 4, 2016. As explained 

9 below, the court GRANTS both motions to remand. 

Case 2:16-cv-02014-KJM-DB Document 16 Filed 11/16/16 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 I. BACKGROUND 

2 On September 24, 2012, plaintiffs filed an action in the Sacramento 

3 County Superior Court against the above-captioned defendants. Not. of Re4 moval Ex. A, ECF No. 1. The removing defendants removed the action un5 der 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), citing the grounds for removal as federal question 

6 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 due to plaintiffs’ allegations of civil rights 

7 violations brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Id. at 2. 

8 At the time the removing defendants filed the Notice of Removal, 

9 DSS had been served with the Summons and Complaint, but did not consent 

10 and has not consented to the removal. ECF No. 8 at 2; ECF No. 10 at 1. 

11 Defendant Rodriguez has since been served with the Summons and Com12 plaint, and similarly does not consent to the removal. ECF No. 8 at 2; ECF 

13 No. 10 at 1. All defendants now move to remand the action to state court on 

14 the grounds of improper removal. See generally, ECF No. 8; ECF No. 10. 

15 II. LEGAL STANDARD FOR REMOVAL AND REMAND 

16 A defendant may generally remove a case from state court to the fed17 eral district court embracing the same location, if that district court has origi18 nal subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, 

19 jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal 

20 in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 

21 (citation omitted). After all, there is a strong presumption against removal, 

22 and courts are to “strictly construe the removal statute against removal juris23 diction.” Id. (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir.1988); Sanchez 

24 v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996). 

25 For removal in civil actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1446 requires unanimous 

26 consent from all properly served defendants. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(2)(A) 

27 (“all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or 

28 consent to the removal of the action”). A defendant served after removal also 

29 has the right to challenge the removal and seek to remand the case. 28 

30 U.S.C. § 1448 (“This section shall not deprive any defendant upon whom 

31 process is served after removal of his right to move to remand the case.”) 

32 Consequently, a court should remand a civil action when it was removed 

33 without the agreement of all defendants. See Aguon-Schulte v. Guam Election 

34 Com’n, 469 F.3d 1236, 1237–39 (9th Cir. 2006). 

35 Here, the unanimity requirement for removal jurisdiction under 28 

36 U.S.C. § 1441(a) was not met. As set forth above, at the time that the Notice 

Case 2:16-cv-02014-KJM-DB Document 16 Filed 11/16/16 Page 2 of 3
3 

1 of Removal was filed, DSS had been served with the Summons and Com2 plaint, yet DSS did not then, and does not now, consent to removal. ECF 

3 No. 10 at 1. Furthermore, defendant Rodriguez, who was served after the 

4 removal, does not consent to the removal. Id. Because consent was and is 

5 not unanimous across all defendants as required by 28 U.S.C. § 446(b)(2)(A), 

6 the court finds removal improper. Accordingly, the court GRANTS both 

7 motions, and REMANDS the action to Sacramento County Superior Court. 

8 III. CONCLUSION 

9 The defendants’ motion to remand is GRANTED. This order re10 solves ECF Nos. 8 and 10. CASE CLOSED. 

11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

12 DATED: November 16, 2016 

Case 2:16-cv-02014-KJM-DB Document 16 Filed 11/16/16 Page 3 of 3