Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05226/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-05226-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bishop Ranch Gateway, Inc.
Defendant
N.A. Sales Company, Inc.
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

N.A. SALES COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiff,

v.

BISHOP RANCH GATEWAY, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-05226-JSC 

ORDER REASSIGNING AND REPORT 

AND RECOMMENDATION TO 

REMAND

Re: Dkt. No. 3

Plaintiff N.A. Sales Company, Inc., a wholesaler of frozen fish meat and other related 

supplies, filed this civil action in 2013 in San Mateo County Superior Court. Following several 

rounds of motion practice, Plaintiff added additional defendants and a federal civil RICO1claim, 

and the recently added defendants removed the action to this Court in February 2019 based on 

federal question jurisdiction. See N.A. Sales Company, Inc. v. Bishop Ranch Gateway, Inc., No. 

19-832. Following removal, several of the defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim and others answered the complaint, but defendant Bishop Ranch Gateway did not respond to 

the complaint. The Clerk therefore entered Bishop Ranch Gateway’s default. (Case No. 19-832, 

Dkt. No. 22.) Because Bishop Ranch Gateway had not appeared or consented to the undersigned 

jurisdiction, the Court, with the appearing parties’ consent, severed Bishop Ranch Gateway and 

opened a new action. See N.A. Sales Company, Inc. v. Bishop Ranch Gateway, Inc., No. 19-5226. 

Plaintiff then filed the now pending motion for default judgment. (Dkt. No. 3.)

Because Bishop Ranch Gateway has not filed a consent or declination to magistrate judge 

jurisdiction, the Clerk of the Court is ordered to REASSIGN this action to a district court judge. 

 

1

 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. 

Case 4:19-cv-05226-YGR Document 10 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 3
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

Northern District of California

For the reasons explained below, the Court recommends that the case be REMANDED to the San 

Mateo Superior Court.

DISCUSSION

A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal 

court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in 

excess of $ 75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil 

action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises under” 

federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal law—“an 

actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49, 60 (2009). When a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent 

obligation to satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 

372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded back to 

state court “if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 

matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

This action was removed from state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction since 

Plaintiff pled a civil RICO claim as to several of the defendants. Plaintiff did not, however, plead 

a civil RICO claim as to Defendant Bishop Ranch Gateway. The only claims pled as to Bishop 

Ranch Gateway are state law claims for book account, breach of contract, and common count: 

goods sold and delivered at agreed price.2 (Case No. 19-832, Dkt. No. 1 at ECF 21-23.) Federal 

question jurisdiction thus does not exist for Plaintiff’s claims against Bishop Ranch Gateway. Nor 

is there a basis for diversity jurisdiction as both Plaintiff and Bishop Ranch Gateway are 

California corporations. (Id. at ECF 10; Case No. 19-5226, Dkt. No. 3-2 at 4.) 

Accordingly, this California federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

state law claims against Bishop Ranch Gateway and the case must be remanded to state court. See

 

2

In the other action, Plaintiff has dismissed its civil RICO claims and that case is likewise being 

remanded to the San Mateo Superior Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). (Case No. 19-832, Dkt. 

No. 102.)

Case 4:19-cv-05226-YGR Document 10 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 3
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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, this Court RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned district court 

judge REMAND this action to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Mateo for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Any party may file objections to this report and recommendation with the district court 

judge within fourteen days after being served with a copy. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72(b); Civil L.R. 72-3. Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the 

right to appeal the district court's ultimate Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 9, 2019

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 4:19-cv-05226-YGR Document 10 Filed 12/09/19 Page 3 of 3