Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00582/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00582-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Credit Bureau Associates
Plaintiff
Mimi Devlin
Defendant
Miriam T. Devlin
Cross-claimant
KelKris Associates, Inc.
Cross-defendant
Miriam T. Vianu
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELKRIS ASSOCIATES, INC., 

doing business as CREDIT BUREAU 

ASSOCIATES,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MIRIAM T. DEVLIN 

aka MIRIAM T. VIANU 

aka MIMI DEVLIN,

Defendant. /

No. C 15-00582 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO REMAND;

AWARDING FEES AND

VACATING HEARING

INTRODUCTION

Defendant moves to remand this debt-collection action, removed by plaintiff, to Contra

Costa Superior Court. For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion to remand is GRANTED.

 STATEMENT

This is a consumer-debt collection action. Plaintiff KelKris Associates, Inc., doing

business as Credit Bureau Associates, filed a common counts cause of action in Contra Costa

Superior Court. KelKris filed the cause of action to collect $2,613.57 plus prejudgment interest

owed to ASAP Collection Service on behalf of Rheem Terrace Association (Devlin Exh. 1).

Defendant Miriam Devlin filed an answer and cross-complaint alleging KelKris violated

state and federal debt collection laws. KelKris, through its counsel Attorney Brandon Reeves,

then removed only Devlin’s cross-complaint here (Dkt. No. 1).

Case 3:15-cv-00582-WHA Document 18 Filed 04/01/15 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Devlin now moves to remand the case to Contra Costa Superior Court. This order

follows full briefing.

ANALYSIS

“A plaintiff who commences his action in a state court cannot effectuate removal to a

federal court even if he could have originated the action in a federal court and even if a

counterclaim is thereafter filed that states a claim cognizable in a federal court.” Oregon Egg

Producers v. Andrew, 458 F.2d 382, 383 (9th Cir. 1972) (per curiam) (citing Shamrock Oil &

Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (1941)). More, “a defendant may not remove a case to federal

court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” 

Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983)

(internal citations omitted). It is well established “that a counterclaim — which appears as part

of the defendant’s answer, not as part of the plaintiff’s complaint — cannot serve as the basis for

‘arising under’ jurisdiction.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc.,

535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002). 

This order holds, and neither party disputes, that Devlin timely filed her motion to

remand within thirty days (Dkt. No. 12). This order grants Devlin’s motion to remand because

there is no basis for original jurisdiction in plaintiff KelKris’ complaint. 

KelKris — our plaintiff — removed the cross-complaint, more appropriately called a

counterclaim, based on a federal question. KelKris, as the plaintiff, may not remove. Similarly,

the cross-complaint cannot provide the basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

This order considers KelKris’ complaint, the only pleading that can properly provide

grounds for removal in this case. KelKris’ complaint fails to provide a basis for removal. This

case is not removable because KelKris only alleged a state-law cause of action. KelKris alleged

neither a federal question nor diversity of citizenship. More, the amount in controversy does not

exceed $75,000. Accordingly, there is no basis for subject-matter jurisdiction and the action is

not removable under 28 U.S.C. 1441.

This order also grants Devlin’s request for $5,560 in attorney’s fees and $25 in costs

incurred in moving to remand this case (Dkt. No. 17-4). “An order remanding the case may

Case 3:15-cv-00582-WHA Document 18 Filed 04/01/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred as a

result of the removal.” 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). Such fees and costs may be awarded when “the

removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking removal.” Martin v. Franklin

Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141 (2005). 

KelKris acted improperly when it removed the cross-complaint because KelKris is the

plaintiff and there was no basis for removal. It was objectively unreasonable for KelKris to

remove this case, not to mention sending nasty emails to try to intimidate Devlin and her counsel

(Dkt. No. 17-3).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated herein, the motion to remand is GRANTED. Attorney’s fees and

costs in the amount of $5,585 are AWARDED against KelKris. The hearing on APRIL 23 is

hereby VACATED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2015. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:15-cv-00582-WHA Document 18 Filed 04/01/15 Page 3 of 3