Free Motion to Remand to State Court - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 1 of 9

, I 2 , 4 5 6

Chad Austin" Esq. SBN235457 3129lndiaStreet SanDieso. 92103-6014 CA Telephoi., 1et9)297-8883 Facsimile: (619) 295-1401 Attomey Plaintifl, for JAMESM. KINDER,anindividual

8 9 l0
1l 12
1 a

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCoURT SOUTHERN DISTRICToF CALIFORNIA

J A M E SM . K I N D I T R , Plaintiff.

( Case o.07 CV 2274lF,G WMc) N Judqe: Ilon. Irma F..Gonzalez Ma[. Judgc: Ilon. William McCurine, .lr. PLAINTIFF JAMES M. KINDER'S POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTOF MOTION TO REMANT) Date: March 17.200tt Time: 10:30 .m. a Placc: Courtrooml I. INTRODUCTION

I J

14 I)
16

v' CAVALRYINVESTMENTS, dbA LLC CAVALRYPORTFOLIO SERVICES and
DOIIS I through100,inclusive. Defendants.

t7 18
l9

TO THE COURT.ALL PARTIESAND THEIR ATTORNEYSOF RECORD:PLEASE 20 2l 22
al LJ

of TAKE NOTICE THAT Plaintiff .IAMES M. KINDER herebysubmitsthis Mcmorandum Pointsand Authoritiesin Supportof his Motion to Remand.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS in Court this On August17 commenced action SanDiegoSuperior . ,2007 Plaintiff Defendant removed actionto this this 3, his ChadAustin. On December 2007, through attorney, 7 r (W CASE 07CV 22 74IEG M c ) NO.

)4

25 26 2 28

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 2 of 9

1
Z
a J

court based solelyon federalquestion grounds, pursuant 28 U.S.C.$ 1441(b). Defendantdid to nol assert Diversityof Citizenship, jurisdictionalbasis therefore waiving diversityas a potential for removal. III. AUTHORITY As federalcourtshavelimitediurisdiction, they arepresumed lackiurisdictionunless to the contraryis established. Gen.Atomic Co. v. UniletJ lrluclear Oorn.,655 lr.2d 968, 968-69(9th Cir. l98l). The burdenof establishing subject matteriurisdiction restswith the partyseeking removal.SeeKokkonenv. Guardian Lilb Ins. Co. ol America.51l tJ.S.375,377(1994). Removal statutesare to be strictly construedand any doubts are to bc resolvedin favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. SeeGausv. Milas,980 I..2d 564, 566 (9th C'ir. 1992\.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll t2 l3 14 l5 16 t7 18 l9

The Court may remand actionto statecourl lbr lack of sub.iect an r-natter.f urisdiction or for any defectin the removalprocedure. See28 U.S.C.$ 1447(c);T'engler Spare,No. C-95v. 33421SI, 1995WL 705142,at *2 (N.D. Cal.Nov. I 5, 1995).Remand may be ordered sua sponte upona party'smotion. Tenqler,1995WL 705142, *2. or at 'l'he Court may remandfbr

fack of subject matter.jurisdiction any time. Id. Seealso Fed.R. Civ. P. l2(h)(3) ("Whenever at

20 it appears suggestion the partiesor otherwise the court lacksjurisdictionof the subject by of that 2l 22 IV. ARGUMENT
ZJ .\A
LA

matter,the court shalldismissthe action.").

A.

FEDERAL QUESTION JURISDTCTTONUNDER SECTION 1331. question In the federalcourts,subjectmatterjurisdiction may arisefrom either "f-ederal

25

26 jurisdiction"or "diversityof citizenship" exceeds when the amountin controversy $75,000.See 27 28
2 ( N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 7 4 l E G W M c )

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 3 of 9

, 2 3 4 ' 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ll l2 l3 14
l < rJ

Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at392;28U.S.C.$$ 1331-32.Here,De{bndant removed the basis on of jurisdiction only. SeeNotice of Removal. Defendantdoesnot allegethat there federalquestion is diversityof citizenship between itself and Plaintiff. See U.S.C.I 1332. Consequently, 28 the Court'sjurisdictionover the actiontums on whetheror not federalquestion iurisdictionexists. SeeMurph)t Lanier,997 F.Supp. v. 1348,1349(S.D.Cal. I 995).u|/'d 204 F.3d91I (9th Cir. 2000).

pederalquestion jurisdictionis governed 28 U.S.C.$ I 33I . which provides by that "[t]he districtcourtsshallhaveoriginaliurisdiction all civil actions of arisingundcrthc Constitution, lawsortreaties the UnitedStates."28 U.S.C.$ 1331. Gcnerally. case "lal of arises undcr fbderallaw wheref-ederal creates cause aclionor wherethe vindicationo1'aright under law the of statelaw necessarily turns on someconstructionof f-ederal \aw.^' RepublicanPartv o-/Guam v. Gutierrez^ 227 F.3d 1086,1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002)(quotingFranchiseTux lld. t,. Constr. LaborersVacationTrust,436 U.S. 1,8-9 (1983))."The presence orabsence fcderal-qucstion of jurisdictionis governed the well-pleaded by complaintrule,which providesthat l'ederal jurisdictionexistsonly when a f-ederal question presented thc facc of thc plaintifl-spropcrly is on pleaded complaint." Caterpillar,482U.S. at392 (internalquotation marksomitted).

16 l7 l8 lg 20 2l

However,"alleginga violationof a federalstatute not alwayssufficientto invoke is
^a

^^ z+ 25 26 2 28

f e d e r aq u e s t i o n j u r i s d i c t i o n . " r p h ) , , g 7 7 F . S u p pa t 1 3 4 9 .S u b i e c t m a t t e r j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r a l Mu . provisions "formally f'ederal and cause actionmay be lacking"as a resultof thc statute's of grantof subject matter intent. Id. at 1350. While section1331providesa general Congressional 7 3 C A S E o . 0 7 C v 2 2 t 4 l E G( w M c ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 4 of 9

, t 2 3
A .t

jurisdiction to the district courtsover actions"arising under" f-ederal law, this grant may be
"

circumscribed Congress.Id. A federallaw that creates causeof action may assign by a jurisdiction over that causeof action to courtsother than the district cour1.Id. B. CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE TCPA. In 1991, Clongress amended Communications of 1934with the Telephone the Act Consumer Protection of 1991("TCPA"). Inl'l Sci.& Tech.Inst.,Inc. v. InacomCommc'ns, Act [ n c . , 1 0 6F . 3 d1 1 4 6 ,| 1 5 0( 4 t hC i r . 1 9 9 7 ) c i t i n gP u b .L . N o . 1 0 2 - 2 4 31 0 5S t a t . 2 3 9 41 9 9 1 ) ( ( , (codified as 47 U.S.C.5 227)). l'he TCPA makesit unlawfulto makeany call usingan automatic telephone dialing system an artificialor prerecorded or voice to, inter aliu, any number a s s i g n etd a p a g i n g e r v i c e 4 7 U . S . C . 2 2 7 ( b ) ( l X A X i i i ) . o s . $

5 6 r $ 9 10 l1 12 13 14 l5 'J l6 Section provides privateremedylbr violationso1-section227(b)(1xA)(iii) 227(b)(3) a and its regulations. particular, ln section 227(b)(3)provides: A personor entitymay, if otherwise permitted the laws or rulesof by court of a State,bring in an appropriate court of that State(A) an actionbased a violationof this subseclion the regulations on or prescribed underthis subsection enioinsuchviolation. to (B) an actionto recoverfor actualmonetary lossliom sucha violation,or to receive$500in damages eachsuchviolation.whicheveris greater, for or a t C ) b o t ho f t h ea b o v e c t i o n s .

17 18 19 20

21 47u.s.c. 22ib\6\(A)-(c). $
22
z)

-^ z+ 25 lll

Plaintiff Complaint. s Plaintiff alleging is violations section of 227(b)(lxAxiii).Sec

26 ur
27 28
( N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 1 4 I E GW M c )

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 5 of 9

I 2
a J

C.

THE COURT LACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER ANY CLATMS BROUGHT PURSUANT TO SECTTON227(b)(3). A majorityof the Circuit Courts,includingthe Ninth Circuit,haveheld that the TCPA

+

jurisdictionover claimsbroughtundersection227(b)(3).See vestsstatecourtswith exclusive Dun-RileConstr., Inc. v. AmazingTickets, Inc.,No. 04-3216,2004 Wt.3239533,a1*2(6th Cir. Dec. 16,2004)("statecourts'maintenance exclusiveiurisdiction of over privaterightsof action underthe TCPA and federalcourts'concomitant lack of.iurisdiction hearsuchprivateclaims to Murphyv. Lanier,204F.3d911.913(91h Cir. 2000);EricNat, Inc. v. Vcloci\, [is] well settled."); Net,Inc.,l56 F.3d513"520 (3d Cir. 1998); FoxhallReult.v Lau,()/_/icas, t,.'l'clccomm,s. Int'. Premium Servs., Ltcl.,156I-'.3d432, 438 (2d Cir. l99U);Nicfutlson Ho'ters q/'Augustu, v. Inc..

5 6 7 8 9 l0
ll

1 2 l 3 6 F . 3 d 1 2 8 7 , 1 2 8 9 . m o d i / i e d . l 4 0 3 d 8 9 8 ( 1 1 t h C i r 1 9 9 8 ) ( ) h a i rK i n q ,I n c . , v .I l o u s t o n F. . , l3 l4 l5 16 l7
ln Murnh)tv. Lanier,the Ninth Circuit cameto "the somewhat unusual cclnclusion that jurisdictionover a causcof actioncreated statecourtshaveexclusive by" a l-ederal statute, C e l l u l a r o r p . ,l 3 l F . 3 d5 0 7 , 5 1 4( 5 t hC i r . 1 9 9 7 ) I n t ' l S c i . . l 0 6F . 3 da | 1 1 5 2 . C ;

1 8 specifically, 227(b)(3) the T'CPA.Murph)t Lanier,204F.3d9l l, 915 (9th Cir. section of v. 19 20 2l

2000) (quotingInt'l Sci.,106 F.3d at 1150). ln Murrth)t, Ninth Circuit agreed the with the Fourth Circuit's finding in International Science that Congress not intendto grantfcdcraldistrict did

227(b)(3)of the TCPA. Id. at913; of 22 courtsjurisdictionover privatecauses actionundersection
.,) z)

was seeInt'l Sci.,106F.3dat 115. The FourthCircuit's holdingin InlernalionalScienc'e history. SeeInt'l Sci.l06 F.3dat supported both the language the TCPA and its legislative by of 1152; urnhy,204F.3d t913. M a

24 25 26 27 28

N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 l 4 l E G( W M c )

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 6 of 9

r I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 11 l2 rr
I J

jurisdictionover privatecauses While section 227(b)(3)grantsstatecourtsexclusive of action,section 227(DQ)explicitlyconfersfederaldistrictcourtswith exclusivejurisdiction over actionsinitiatedby the states.Int'l ici.,106 F.3d ar 1152.The FourthCircuit found "it significant that in enacting TCPA, Congress the wrote precisely. makingjurisdictional distinctions the very samesection the Act by providingthat privateactionsmay be brought in of in appropriate statecourtsand that actionsby the states mustbe broughtin the lederalcourts." Id. Furthermore, liourthCircuit fbund that the legislative the hislory supported conclusion the that no federaljurisdiction existsfor claimsinitiatedundersection227(b)(3) Congress as intendedtoprovidea"speedy,effective. and inexpensive remedy." Murph.v,204 l.'.3d 913. at Privateactionsunderthe TCPA shouldtherelore treated smallclaimsresolved state bc as in courtso longasthe state allowssuchactions.Id. (citingInl'l Sc'i.,106 t'.3d al1152). Accordingly,a claim alleged undersection 227(b)(3)of thc 'I'CPA doesnot conl'erI-ederal

14 tJ '5 t6 17

question . v. .iurisdiction SeeWatson NCO Gntun, Inc..462 F. Srpp. 2d 641.646 (lr.D. Pa. 2006);Martinezv. Ballas,Civ. No. 04-785-PHX-RGS, 2006 WL 2541368. * I (D. Ariz. Aug. at 31, 2006),Brodeurv. SwanFin. Corn.,No. 4:05CY2418 DDN. 2006WL 950208, *3 (lJ.D. at

l o

Ig 20 2l 22

Mo. Apr. I l, 2006);RedqfiningProsress Fax.com. No. C 02-4057M.f.f 2003 Wt- 926853, v. . a t t 2 ( N . D .C a l .M a r .3 , 2 0 0 3 ) .

District Courtswithin the Ninth Circuit have interpreted Murph)tto foreclosefederal ^+ 2^ 25 26 2 2g question.jurisdiction TCPA claims. See W Kinder v. (litibank No. 99-CV -2500 (JAH), 2000 of (l for WL 1409762, *3 (S.D.Cal. Sept.14,2000)("Murphy stands two narrowpropositions: ) at Congress not intendthe TCPA to confer federaldistrict courtswith jurisdiction over private did 7 6 ( C A S E o . 0 7 C v 2 2 7 4 I E GW M c ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 7 of 9

,I

actions, (2) the general and federal question statute,28 U.S.C.$ 1331. doesnot apply.").See

2 3
4 '

alsoBo),dston Asset v. Acceptance, 496F.Supp.2d, LLC. 1101, 1108. at No. C06-04gg9-JCS, N.O.Cal.July23,2007) ("ThisCourtis bound theNinthCircuir's by in decision Murphv v.
Lanier. which precludesfederal questionjurisdiction for claims pursuant to thc TCPA. ^\ce

5 Murphy.204F.3dat 915."). 6 .' , 8 9 10 ll 12 l3 Divcrsityof Citizcnship. Defendant failedto statethat basiswhen it rcmovcdand it haslong sinccwaivedits right to do so. 'l'herefbre, this Court docsnol havesubjcclmatter.iurisdiction D. DEFENDANT HAS WAIVED ANY RIGHT TO ASSERT THAT THIS COURT H A S J U R I S D I C T I O NB A S E DO N D I V E R S I T Y O F C I T I Z E N S H I P A N D T H I S COURT DOES NOT HAVE THE POWER TO GRANT DEFENDANT LEAVE TO AMEND THE NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO ADD A NEW ALLEGEGATION OF DIvERSITy. Rcgardless whetheror not Defendant of could haveproperlyremovedthis casebased on

1 4 o v e rt h ei n s t a na c t i o n . t l5 l6 17 18 l9 20
11 L'

Defendant was served with the summons and complaintin this caseon November6. 2007 Pursuant 28 Ll.S.C.$ 1446(b). Defendant . to had until I)cccmbcr6, 2007to filc a Noticc of Removal, stating bases jurisdiction this case the lrederal a// fbr of in I)istrictCourtin which it currentlysits. However,when Defendant filed its Notice of Removalon December 2007,it 3, matterjurisdictionin this court:federalquestion allegedonly one (1) basisfor subject jurisdiction. SeeDefendant's Defendant foreverwaivedany has Notice of Removal. Therefore.

22
aa

ground. Specifically, has Del'endant on n"n and all right to removalbased any otheriurisdictional l+ 25 26 27 2g jurisdictionbasedon Diversityof that this courthassubjeclmatter waivedany right 10assert Citizenship. 'l ( C A S E O . 0 7 C V 2 2 7 4 I E GW M c ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 8 of 9

1 2 3
A r

Moreover.while procedural defects normallywaivedif the party seeking are remanddoes noI file a motion to remandwithin 30 daysof serviceof the notice of removal"lack of federal subject matterjurisdictionrs neverwaived. 28 U.S.C.$ 1447(.c); Libhart v. SantaMonicaDairyt C o ( 9 t h i r . 1 9 7 9 )5 g z F 2 d1 0 6 2 ,1 0 6 5 . c

) 6 7 8 9 10 l1 Courtshavediscrelionary powerto grantthe removingparty leaveto amenddel-ective removal noticesvtilhin the 30-dayremovalperiod. Def-ects the lbrm or contenlof the removal in pup.., areusuallynot jurisdictionalandmay be curedby amendment afier removal;e.g.,to furnish the requiredcopiesof the statecourt fi\e. lValionalAudubonSoc'iery DenartmenloJ' v. Water& Powero_/ Anseles (E.D.CA 1980) Los 496 F.Supp 499,503. Wherethe requisitc . jurisdictionalgrounds are not omitted entirely, but rathcrarc mcrcly dcl-cctivc lbrm, lailurc in to statevulid grounds removalmaybe curedby post-removal lbr amendment the notice,as of long as such.iurisdiction f'act in existed the time of removal.See28 U.S.C.$ 1653at "Def-ective allegations ofjurisdictionmay be amended. uponterms.in the trial or appellate courts";sacMcMahonv. Bunn-O-MolkI:9!p,. supra.l50 F3d al654.

t2
l3 14
l' J <

t6 17 Iti 19 20 LL 22
.,,1

lfowever, Defendant this casedid not allegeDiversityof Citizenship all in its Notice in at of Removaland the latestdatethat it could havedoneso was December 6.2007. Therefore. Defendant longerhasthe right to amendits Notice of Removal. Assuming,for the sakeof no

^+ l A 25 26 2 2g

failureto comply with the 30 day argument, thatthe Court is willing to overlookDefendant's is time limit, Defendant's failureto allegeDiversityof Citizenship nolaprocedural defectwhich nor can be curedby amendment is it a defectiveallegation ofjurisdiction. To the contrary,there 7 8 ( C A S E O .0 7 C v 2 2 1 4 l E G W M c ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02274-IEG-WMC

Document 8-2

Filed 01/23/2008

Page 9 of 9

I
L

was no allegationof Diversityof Citizenship subject matlerjurisdictionwhatsoever. Because the removalnoticemust be filed within 30 daysafterthe complaintis received (28 U.S.C.| 1447 (c)), it may not be amended add a separate jurisdictionafier the30-day to basisfor removal period. 0'Halloranv. Llniversi\t Washington o-f 1988)856 F2d 1375.l3gl. 19'r'Cir. V. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above,Plaintiff respectfully requests this Court granthis thal Motion to Remand. DATED: January 2008 23, Ily: /s/ Clhad Austin CHAD ALJSI'IN,Esq.,Atlorneyfor I ) l a i n t i l lJ A M I l S M . K l N D l i l t . Emai : chadausti I nfa)cox. net

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 t4 t5 16 t7 l8 l9 20 2l 22
aa

ZJ 1AA L

25 26 21 28
( N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 2 7 4 l E G W M c )