Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01214/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01214-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
County of Sutter
Plaintiff
Liberty Real Estate Management, Inc
Defendant
Meridian Media Group, LLC
Defendant

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

27

28 This matter was determined to be suitable for decision *

without oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h). 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

County of Sutter, ) 2:07-cv-1214-GEB-KJM

)

Plaintiff, ) ORDER*

)

v. )

)

Liberty Real Estate Management, )

Inc., a California corporation, )

Meridian Media Group, LLC, a )

California Limited Liability )

Company, and DOES 1 through 10, )

)

Defendants. )

 )

Plaintiff moves to remand this case to state court, arguing

federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. Defendants counter

that federal question jurisdiction exists. For the reasons stated

below, the remand motion will be granted.

Plaintiff filed its Complaint in state court alleging that

Defendants have placed one or more billboards on property owned by

Defendant Liberty Real Estate Management, Inc., in violation of Sutter

County zoning code. Plaintiff also seeks costs of suit under

California Government Code section 54988. Defendants argue in their

Notice of Removal to federal court, filed June 20, 2007, that this

Case 2:07-cv-01214-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 10/23/07 Page 1 of 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

2

court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the

action arises under the First Amendment of the United States

Constitution (“federal question”). The federal question issue is only

raised in Defendants’ Answer, filed June 22, 2007, where Defendants

allege as an affirmative defense that the Zoning Code is

unconstitutional because it violates their First amendment rights. 

An action may be removed to federal court only if it could

have been brought there originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Defendants

bear the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, “and the removal

statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Prize

Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir.

1999). “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is

governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that

federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented

on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” 

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “A case may

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, ...

even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and

even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only

question truly at issue.” Id. at 393.

Since Plaintiff’s claims are asserted under a county

ordinance and state statutes, and the sole federal question in this

action is Defendants’ affirmative defense in which they challenge the

constitutionality of the zoning code, the federal court lacks federal

question jurisdiction. Therefore, this action will be remanded. 

Plaintiff seeks $1,321.60 in costs and attorney’s fees under

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) which were incurred as a result of the removal. 

Under section 1447(c), "[a]n order remanding the case may require

Case 2:07-cv-01214-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 10/23/07 Page 2 of 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

payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney

fees, incurred as a result of the removal." 

The rationale authorizing this award of costs follows:

“[t]he process of removing a case to federal court and then having it

remanded back to state court delays resolution of the case, imposes

additional costs on both parties, and wastes judicial resources.” 

Martin v. Franklin Capital Corporation et al., 546, U.S. 132 (2005). 

“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s fees under

§ 1447(C) only where the removing party lacked an objectively

reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Id. at 141.

Since the requirements of the well-pleaded complaint rule

are clear and well-settled, and Defendants have not asserted a

reasonable basis for removal, Plaintiff will be awarded attorney’s

fees; however, not in the amount sought. The amount Plaintiff seeks

includes anticipated time at oral argument on the remand motion, but

the motion was not argued at a hearing because it was submitted for

decision. Plaintiff’s award will be reduced accordingly.

For the above stated reasons, this action is remanded to the

Superior Court for the County of Sutter, and Plaintiff is awarded

$1,153.60 in attorney’s fees. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 22, 2007

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01214-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 10/23/07 Page 3 of 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

4

Case 2:07-cv-01214-GEB -KJM Document 18 Filed 10/23/07 Page 4 of 4