Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05360/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-05360-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Brooks
Plaintiff
Kelsey Guadinier
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSEPH BROOKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELSEY GUADINIER,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-05360-EMC 

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 

STATE COURT

Plaintiff Joseph Brooks has filed suit against Defendants the County of Alameda and three 

of its employees, namely, Kelsey Gaudinier, J. Miles, and M. McNeil. Currently pending before 

the Court is Defendants‟ motion to dismiss. See Docket No. 12 (motion). The Court does not rule 

on the motion to dismiss because, as discussed below, Defendants have failed to show that the 

Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.

Mr. Brooks initiated his case in state court. Defendants removed on the basis of federal 

question jurisdiction – i.e., on the grounds that Mr. Brooks was asserting claims for relief under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. “Removal and subject matter jurisdiction statutes are „strictly construed,‟ and a 

„defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper and any doubt is 

resolved against removability.‟” Hawaii ex rel. Louie v. HSBC Bank Nev., N.A., 761 F.3d 1027, 

1034 (9th Cir. 2014). Here, “[a]lthough [Mr. Brooks] could have brought this action under section 

1983 for violation of his federal constitutional rights, he did not [apparently] do so. [His] 

complaint is devoid of any mention of the United States Constitution, federal constitutional 

amendments, section 1983, or any other federal basis for relief.” Bryant v. Gallagher, No. 1:11-

cv-01927-AWI-SKO PC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136812, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 29, 2011). 

Moreover, Mr. Brooks‟s “decision to file suit in state court utilizing a state civil complaint form 

Case 3:15-cv-05360-EMC Document 19 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 2
2

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

For the Northern District of California

alleging state law claims” for an intentional tort suggests that Mr. Brooks “exercised his right to 

rely exclusively on state law.” Hysell v. Yates, No. 1:10-cv-00192-SMS PC, 2010 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 28351, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2010) (report and recommendation); see also Bryant, 

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136812, at *3 (taking note of “Plaintiff‟s decision to file suit in state court

on a state form complaint”; cf. Ruiz v. Enenmoh, No. 1:12-cv-00352-SKO PC, 2012 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 62421, at *6 (E.D. Cal. May 3, 2012) (noting that “Plaintiff‟s claims are not governed 

exclusively by federal law, thereby permitting, or requiring, recharacterization as a federal claim[;] 

[w]here a plaintiff can maintain claims under both federal and state law, he is entitled to rely 

exclusively on state law, ignoring the availability of relief under federal law”). 

Because doubts are resolved against removability and the complaint is not based on federal 

law, Defendants have not met their burden of proof and, accordingly, the Court remands this case 

back to the Alameda County Superior Court. The hearing on Defendants‟ motion to dismiss, 

which was set for January 28, 2016, is hereby VACATED. Because the Court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction, it makes no ruling on the motion to dismiss.

The Clerk of the Court shall remand and close the file in this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2016

______________________________________

EDWARD M. CHEN

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-05360-EMC Document 19 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2