Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00378/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00378-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dataline Credit Corp.
Defendant
Tamika Lashonda Tillis
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TAMIKA LASHONDA TILLIS, No. CIV.S-06-0378 LKK DAD PS

Plaintiff,

v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

DATALINE CREDIT CORP.,

a California corporation,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

By order filed March 1, 2006, defendant was directed to

show cause in writing days why this matter should not be remanded to

state court. The allotted time has expired and defendant has not

responded to the order to show cause. Defendant was forewarned that

the failure to timely file the required writing would result in a

recommendation of remand. Therefore, the undersigned will now

recommend that this state small claims matter be summarily remanded

to the Small Claims Division of the Sacramento County Superior Court.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant in a civil

action may remove a case from state court to federal district court

Case 2:06-cv-00378-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 04/03/06 Page 1 of 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

2

if the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case. 

The district court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case if

there is diversity of citizenship between the parties or if the

action is founded on a claim arising under the Constitution, laws, or

treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b); see also 28

U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 1332

(diversity jurisdiction).

Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal. 

See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.

1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt

as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles,

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The burden of establishing

federal jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Harris v.

Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.

1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co. of New York, 790 F.2d 769,

771 (9th Cir. 1986)).

As observed in more detail in the order to show cause,

plaintiff’s small claims complaint alleges that defendant owes

plaintiff money due to: “1. Defamation of Credit Character 2. 

Fraud 3. California Fair Credit Reporting Act.” Liberally

construed, therefore, this matter concerns an alleged violation of

the California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act, Cal. Civ.

Code, § 1785.1 et seq., not the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15

U.S.C. § 1681, et seq., as defendant asserts in its notice of

removal. Therefore, federal question jurisdiction does not exist.

/////

Case 2:06-cv-00378-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 04/03/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Nor does diversity jurisdiction exist, plaintiff and

defendant both being citizens of California and plaintiff seeking

damages of $5,000.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this state small

claims matter be summarily remanded to the Small Claims Division of

the Sacramento County Superior Court.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the

United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within ten (10) days after

being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may

file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all

parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. See Martinez

v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: March 31, 2006.

DAD:th

DDad1\orders.prose\tillis0378.f&r

Case 2:06-cv-00378-LKK -DAD Document 7 Filed 04/03/06 Page 3 of 3