Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CHARLES A. MILLER v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION

November 29, 2010

CHARLES A. MILLER,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND ACTION TO STATE COURT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) BE GRANTED

(Doc. 8)

I. FINDINGS

A. Procedural Background

On June 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a complaint in the Civil Division of the Superior Court of California, County of Fresno (hereinafter "FSC") (Docs. 1-2 through 1-6, Exhibits to Def. Not. of Removal.) This was served on Defendant A. Walker, on whose behalf a Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt was signed on July 21, 2010. (Doc. 10, Plntf. Mot. to Remand, p. 34.) Personal service of the summons and complaint was achieved on Defendants Chudy, Anderson, Ahmed, Pascual, and Medina on July 22, 2010, and proofs of service thereon were filed in FSC on August 4, 2010. (Id. at pp. 61-62, 66-67, 70-71, 75-76, & 80-81.) On August 6, 2010, Defendants Walker, Ahmed, and Pascual filed a Notice of Removal which removed the case to this Court. (Doc. 1.) On September 13, 2010, Defendants Anderson and Chudy filed their joinder in removal of the action. (Doc. 14.) Defendant Medina has not joined in the removal. On August 27, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking remand of this action to state court. (Doc. 8.)

In his motion, Plaintiff requests that this case be remanded to FSC either in whole or in part. Plaintiff argues that removal to this Court was not proper as not all of the defendants who were served with his original complaint have personally appeared and/or consented to removal to this Court and that the notice of removal was defective since it did not include copies of all documents filed and served in the state court action.

B. Removal Jurisdiction and Remand

Title 28 of the United States Code section 1441(a) provides that a defendant may remove from state court any action "of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction." Federal courts "shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

"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) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Upon review of Plaintiff's complaint, it is clear that the majority of claims asserted in this matter arise under federal law. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1065 (9th Cir. 1979) (existence of federal jurisdiction determined by the complaint at the time of removal). The first page of Plaintiff's complaint, and the vast majority of its pages, address claims which arise and are properly brought and adjudicated under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violation of his federal constitutional rights.

A plaintiff objecting to the removal may file a motion asking the district court to remand the case to state court. Caterpillar, 519 U.S. at 69. The removal statutes are strictly construed, and doubts about the propriety of removal are resolved in favor of remand. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir.2006) (citations omitted); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 (9th Cir.1985). A plaintiff may move for remand when removal to federal court was procedurally defective, although procedural defects do not necessarily deprive the court of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The removing party bears the burden of demonstrating removal was proper. Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 685; United Computer Sys. v. AT & T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 763 (9th Cir.2002); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

C. Consent/Joinder by All Served Defendants:

Plaintiff argues that removal to this Court was not proper as not all of the defendants who were served with his original complaint in the FSC action have consented to or joined in the removal to this Court.

In a case involving multiple defendants, "[a]ll defendants must join in a removal petition with the exception of nominal parties." Hewitt v. City of Stanton, 798 F.2d 1230, 1232-33 (9th Cir. 1986) ref 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b); Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Martin, 178 U.S. 245, 248 (1900); Tri-Cities Newspapers, Inc. v. Tri-Cities Printing Pressman & Assistants' Local 349, 427 F.2d 325, 326-27 (5th Cir.1970). This general rule applies to defendants who are properly joined and served in the state action. Emerich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1193, n.1 (9th Cir. 1988) ref. Salveson v. Western States Bankcard Ass'n, 731 F.2d 1423, 1429 (9th Cir. 1984). "The failure to join all proper defendants in a removal petition may otherwise render the removal petition procedurally defective." Id. ref. Cornwall v. Robinson, 654 F.2d 685, 86 (10th Cir. 1981). If fewer than all defendants join in removal, the removing party has the burden to affirmatively explain the absence of the non-joining defendants in the notice of removal. See Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999) overruled on other grounds by Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 f.3d 676, 680 (9th Cir. 2006) (noting that jurisdiction under Class Action Fairness Act does not require joinder of all defendants). Defects in the removal notice must be cured within the thirty-day statutory period permitted for joinder. Prize Frize, Inc. V. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir. 1999). "[F]ailure to adhere to the unanimity rule is dispositive." Prize Frize, 167 F.3d at 1266, n.4.

Here, Plaintiff accomplished service on Defendant Walker on July 21, 2010 via endorsement of Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt of the Summons and Complaint in the FSC matter (Doc. 10, Exh to Miller Dec., p. 34) and on Defendants Chudy, Anderson, Ahmed, Pascual, and Medina via personal service on July 22, 2010 (Id. at pp. 61-62, 66-67, 70-71, 75-76, & 80-81.) On August 6, 2010, Defendants Walker, Ahmed, and Pascual filed the Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1.) On September 13, 2010, Defendants Anderson and Chudy filed their joinder in the removal of the action (Doc. 14) -- which was defective since beyond the thirty day statutory period permitted for joinder. Prize Frize, 167 F.3d at 1266. While defense counsel submitted a declaration with the joinder of Defendants Chudy and Anderson, indicating that she did not receive their requests for representation until August 10, 2010 and September 7, 2010 respectively (Doc. 14, Joinder, Ramsey Dec., ΒΆΒΆ 6 & 7), there was no explanation provided as to any attempts made to contact Defendants Chudy and Anderson to obtain their consent to joinder in removal so as to join ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.