Isabel Vela V Tow Guyz Llc Et Al

Key Facts

Transaction Type

Issues

• The court examines whether federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction applies. There is no federal question as the complaint only asserts state law breach of contract claims without constitutional violations. Diversity jurisdiction is unavailable as both parties are California-domiciled and the amount in controversy is only approximately $4,700, below the $75,000 threshold.
• The court addresses whether Plaintiff Isabel Vela properly removed her case from state court to federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The court concludes that only defendants may remove cases to federal court, not plaintiffs, making this removal improper under established Ninth Circuit precedent.
• The court recommends remanding the case to state court due to improper removal by the plaintiff and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court finds no basis for federal jurisdiction as the case involves only state law breach of contract claims, and the parties share California domicile with insufficient controversy amount.

Holdings

Remedies

• The Clerk of Court is directed to randomly assign a District Court Judge to the present matter.
• The court recommends that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis be denied as moot.
• The court recommends that this case be remanded back to the appropriate state court due to improper removal and lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Legal Principles

• Only defendants may remove cases from state to federal court; plaintiffs cannot remove their own cases. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), removal is available only to defendants, not plaintiffs. Where a plaintiff improperly removes its own case, the appropriate remedy is to remand the case to state court.
• The defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal to federal court is proper. Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court. Courts may raise subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time during the pendency of the action.
• Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint (well-pleaded complaint rule). A breach of contract claim is a state law matter, not federal law. Federal jurisdiction requires the federal question to appear on the face of the complaint.
• Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity of citizenship between plaintiff and defendants and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000. In this case, both parties are domiciled in California and the amount in controversy is approximately $4,700, which is insufficient for diversity jurisdiction.

Precedent Name

• Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co.
• Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams
• Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp.
• Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.
• Progressive W. Ins. Co. v. Preciado
• Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv.
• Gomez v. Celebrity Home Health & Hospice Incorporated
• Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc.
• Toumajian v. Frailey
• Okot v. Callahan
• Gaus v. Miles, Inc.
• Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.

Cited Statute

• 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(C), 1442, 1443, 1446(C)
• 28 U.S.C. § 1332
• Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(H)(3)
• 28 U.S.C. § 1441(A)
• 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)

Passage Text

• Moreover, Plaintiff fails to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction exists in this case. (See generally ECF No. 1 at 1-3, 13-17) Rather, it appears that Plaintiff and Defendants are both domiciled in the state of California. (Id., pp. 6-7). Additionally, the amount in controversy appears to be approximately $4,700; an insufficient amount for diversity jurisdiction (Id., p.15).
• As described above, when a Plaintiff files a case in state court, a defendant may remove the case to federal court under certain circumstances. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) ('Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.' 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). Here, Plaintiff has removed her own case. This removal is improper because 'a plaintiff cannot remove an action to federal court.' Progressive W. Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479 F.3d 1014, 1017 (9th Cir. 2007); Bush v. Cheaptickets, Inc., 425 F.3d 683, 686 (9th Cir. 2005) ('The removal statute ... is quite clear that only a 'defendant' may remove the action to federal court. ').
• Furthermore, Plaintiff's complaint does not identify a federal claim subject to this Court's jurisdiction. Plaintiff's complaint only asserts a breach of contract claim. (ECF No. 1, at p. 13-17). However, a breach of contract claim is a matter of state—not federal—law. See Gomez v. Celebrity Home Health & Hospice Incorporated, 2017 WL 1282803, at *4 (D. Ariz., Apr. 6, 2017, No. CV-16-02754-PHX-JJT) (dismissing case for lack of federal jurisdiction because '[t]he only remaining claim in the proposed Amended Complaints (Docs. 50, 67) is Plaintiff's breach of contract claim—a state law claim').

Damages / Relief Type