United States District Court, E.D. California
SAN JOAQUIN GENERAL HOSPITAL, a division of the County of San Joaquin, Plaintiff,
FARZANA SHEIKH and REHAN SHEIKH, Defendants.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
DEBORAH BARNES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Notice of Removal filed June 6, 2017, this action was removed
from the San Joaquin County Superior Court by defendant Rehan
Shiekh, who is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the matter has
been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed
by Local Rule 302(c)(21). Plaintiff's action seeks an
order of abandonment of a mobile home located in San Joaquin
regard, it is well established that the statutes governing
removal jurisdiction must be “strictly construed
against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy
Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing
Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S.
100, 108 (1941)); see also Syngenta Crop Prot.,
Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial
Gov't of Martinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d
1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must
be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal
in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The burden
of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party
invoking removal.'” Harris v. Provident Life
& Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir.
1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d
769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)); see also Provincial Gov't
of Martinduque, 582 F.3d at 1087. In addition,
“the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely
on the plaintiff's claims for relief and not on
anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl.
Remediation, LLC v. Dep't of Health & Envtl.
Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Where it
appears, as it does here, that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the
case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
removing this action, defendant asserts that this court has
original jurisdiction over the action based on the presence
of a federal question. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) However, it is
evident from a reading of plaintiff's “PETITION FOR
JUDGMENT OF ABANDONMENT” that this action is based
wholly on California law without reference to any claim under
federal law. (Id. at 15-18.) As such, the complaint
does not involve any “claim or right arising under the
Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States”
that would have permitted plaintiff to file this action
originally in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1441(b). It is also evident from defendant's Notice of
Removal that any federal claims that could conceivably be
presented in this action arise solely from defendant's
own affirmative defenses and not from the plaintiff's
petition. See ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC, 213 F.3d
also asserts that the court has diversity jurisdiction over
this action. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) District courts have diversity
jurisdiction only over “all civil actions where the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000,
exclusive of interest and costs, ” and the action is
between: “(1) citizens of different States; (2)
citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign
state; (3) citizens of different States and in which citizens
or subjects of a foreign state are additional parties; and
(4) a foreign state . . . as plaintiff and citizens of a
State or of different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
“To demonstrate citizenship for diversity purposes a
party must (a) be a citizen of the United States, and (b) be
domiciled in a state of the United States.” Lew v.
Moss, 797 F.2d 747, 749 (9th Cir. 1986).
“Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity
between the parties-each defendant must be a citizen of a
different state from each plaintiff.” In re
Digimarc Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223,
1234 (9th Cir. 2008).
all parties appear to be citizens of California. (ECF No. 1
at 15.) Moreover, it is not apparent that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000. Thus, the defendant has failed
to meet the burden of establishing a basis for federal
jurisdiction over this action.
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily
remanded to the San Joaquin County Superior Court and that
this case be closed.
findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United
States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen
days after being served with these findings and
recommendations, any party may file written objections with
the court and serve a copy on all parties. A document
presenting objections should be titled “Objections to
Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations.”
Any reply to objections shall be filed and served within
fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties
are advised that failure to file objections within the
specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
Court's order. See Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d
1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
 It does not appear that defendant
Farzana Sheikh signed the June 6, 2017 notice of removal.
(ECF No. 1 at 11.)
 Moreover, it appears that
defendant's removal of this action may be an attempt to
continue defendant's long running dispute with the
plaintiff. See San Joaquin General Hospital v. Farzana
Sheikh, No. 2:14-cv-1509 MCE AC PS; Farzana Sheikh,