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

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 1 of 10

. I 2 , . 4 5 6
7

Chad Austin,Esq.SBN235457 3129lndiaStreet Sa n i e q oC A 9 2 1 0 3 -6 0 1 4 D . Telephoie: 9) 297-8888 1Ot 6 ) F a c s i m i l(e :1 9 2 9 5 - 1 4 0 1 Attorney Plaintiff, lbr JAMES KINDBR. individual M. an

8 9 l0
lI J A M E SM . K I N D E R .

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOTJRT S o U THERN DISTRICT CALIFoRNIA oF

t2
13 14 v. l5 1, ro ASTRA Bt ISINIrSS SERVICIS.Irrc.and D O E SI t h r o u g h 0 0 . n c l u s i v e . 1 i Def-cndants. Plaintiff.

f N C a s e o . 0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( n . B ) D Consolidated Action
.ludge : Ilon. I)anaM. Sabraw Mag..ludge: Hon.AnthonyJ. Battaglia MEMORANDTJM OF POINTS ANI) A T ] T H O R I T I E SI N S T J P P O R O F T MOTION TO REMAND Date: April 25. 200ti Timc: l:30n.nr. Place:Courirooml0

T7 l8 l9
20 2l 'I'AKE 1'O 'fllH

I. INTRODTJCTION COURI'"ALL PARTIESAND 'fIIEIR AI']'ORNITYS RITCOI{D: PLITASIT OIr

NOl'lCE TI{AT Plaintifi'JAMESM. KINDtrR hercbvsubmilsthis Memoranclum of'

22
./, -)

Pointsand Authoritiesin Support his Motion to Remand. of

24
25 26

TI.STATEMENTOF FACTS
Court this On August20.2007,Plaintiff commenced actionin SanDiego Superior throughhis attorney, ChadAustin. SeePlaintiff s Complaint. On October31,2007,Defendant

27 28
N C A S E O .0 7C V 2 I 3 2D M S( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 2 of 10

1 2
J
a

removedthis actionto this courtbased solelyon federalquestion grounds, pursuant 28 U.S.C. to DocketNumber l. Defendant nol assert did Diversityo1'Citizenship, therefbre $ 1441(b). .See jurisdictionalbasisfor waiving diversityof citizenship, any otherbasis. a potential and as removal. Moreover. diversitydoesnot exist amongthe parties that both parties cilizensof in are the State California.SeePlaintiffs Complaint; of ExhibitA; I)cclaralion o1-Chad Austin.

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll

III. AUTHORITY As f'ederal courtshavelimitediurisdiction, theyareprcsumed lack.jurisdiction to unlcss ('orp.. 655 Ir.2d968. 968-69(9th the contraryis estabf ished. Gen.Atomic ('o. t,. Unitedl,,luclear Cir. 1981).The burden establishing of sub.iect matter.jurisdiction with the partyseeking rests removal.SceKokkoncnv. Guurclian Li-fb Ins.('o. o-/ lntarit'u.5ll iJ.S.375.377(1994).

t2

l 3 Removal statutesare to be strictly construedand any doubts are to be resolvcdin favor of t 4 state court jurisdiction and remand. SeeGaust,. Miles,980 I-.2d 564. 566(9th Cir. 1992). 15
l6 17 18 l9
procedure. 28 U.S.C.$ 1447(c);7'cngler Srsure. C-95for any defectin thc removal Sec t,. No. m s 3 3 4 2 1 S I1 9 9 5W L 7 0 5 1 4 2 . a 1 * ( N . l ) . C a l .N o v . 1 5 .1 9 9 5 ) .R c m a n d a y b c o r d e r e d u a , 2 The Court may remandan actionto statecourt for lack of sub.iect nratter.jurisdiction or

20 sponteor upona party'smotion. Tengler,1995WL 705142, *2. 'l'hc Court may remand1br al 21 22
of that the court lacksiurisdiction the subiect it appears suggestion the parties otherwise by of or
a) 1A

jurisdictionat any time. Id. Seealso Fed.R. Civ. P. 12(hX3)("Whenever lack of subject matter

matter,the court shalldismissthe action.").

_a

25 26 27 28
C A S EN O . 0 7 C V 2 I 3 2 D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 3 of 10

I 2 3
^ ' 5 , o , 3 o v l0 ll
1 1
I L

IV. ARGUMENT A. FEDERALQUESTION JURISDICTION UNDERSECTION1331. 1nthefederal "federal question courts, subiect matteriurisdiction arise may fiom either
when the amountin controversy exceeds $75,000.,\'ee iurisdiction"or "diversityof citizenship" Calerpillar,482 U.S. at392,28 U.S.C.S$ 1331-32.[]erc.Defcndant rcmoved the basis on o1' jurisdictiononly. SeeNotice of Removal. federalquestion DockelNo. 1. Det-endant docsnot allege thatthere diversity citizenship is of between itsell'and Plaintifl. Scc28 tJ.S.C. 1332. $ ^ Consequently, Court'sjurisdictionover the actionturnson whetheror not f-ederal the question cx . F . 1 . j u r i s d i c t i o n i s t sS e cM u r p h v v .L a n i e r . 9 9 7 . S u p p1 3 4 8 . 3 4 9( S . D .C a l . 1 9 9 8 ) , a | f " d 2 0 4 F . 3 d9 l I ( 9 t hC i r . 2 0 0 0 ) .

1 a I J

14 l5 l6 t7 l8 1g 20
11

jurisdiction govcrned 28 LJ.S.C. 1331. question Fcderal is by which providcs that"ltlhe $ districtcourtsshallhaveoriginaliurisdiction all civil actions of arising underthc Constitution, "Ial lawsortreaties the UnitedStates."28 tJ.S.C. 1331. Generally. case of arises under $ federallaw wherefederallaw creates cause actionor wherethe vindicationof a risht under the of I'ar\, q/ Guumv. statelaw necessarily turnson someconstruction o1'f'cdcral law." Rcpublit'un (9th Cir. 2002)(quoting liranchise'l'ax v. ('onstr. IJd. Gutierrez,227 b.3d 1086,1088-89 o1-l'ederal-question LaborersVqcationTrusl,436 U.S. 1,8-9 (1983))."I-hepresence orabsence that federal by complaintrule.which provides iurisdictionis governed the well-pleaded

22

24 25 26
1',1

jurisdictionexistsonly when a federalquestion presented the faceof the plaintiff s properly is on quotation rnarksomittcd). pleaded 482 U.S. al392 (internal complaint." Caterrtillar,

.t

28

C A S E O .0 7C V 2 1 2 D M S( A J B ) N 3

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 4 of 10

, I

However,''alleginga violationof a federalstalulcis not alwayssulllcienlto invoke

2 3
4

jurisdiction Murph.y,977. Supp. 1349.Subject question f-ederal ." F at matter overa iurisdiction "formallyfederal provisions cause action of maybe lacking" a result thestatute's as of and
Congressional intent. Id. aI 1350. Whilc scctionl33l providcsa general grantof subjeclmatter "arisingundcr"l-cdcral jurisdiction the district to courts law. this grantmay bc overactions circumscribed Congress. A l-ederal that crcatcs causco1'action by Itl. law a may assign jurisdiction ovcr that causeof action to courtsother than the district courI".Icl. g. CLAIMS ARISING UNDER THE TCPA. In 1991, Congress amended Communications of 1934with thc the Act 'l-clephonc

'

5 6
, 8 9 10 1l 12 l3 14 l5 l6

Protcclion of 199l ("l'ClPA"). Int'l Sci.&'l'cch.In.st., r,.Inuutm ('ommc'n,s, Consumer Acl Int'. 1 ( | n c . . 1 0 6 - . 3 d 1 4 6 ,1 1 5 0 4 r hC l i r . 9 9 7 ( c i t i n g u b .1 . . o . 1 0 2 - 2 4 3 0 - sS r a r . 2 3 9(4 9 9 1 ) I I 1 ) P N l. (codilied 47 U.S.C.{ 227)). l'he1'CPA makes unlawlul1omakeany call usingan it as voice to, inler aliu.any number automatic telephone dialing system oran artificialorprerecorded assigned a pagingservice. U.S.C.$ 227 (bXl XA)(.iii). to 47

t7
l8 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 provides private ol'section 227(b)( XA)(iii) I remedy violations 1br Section 227(b)(3) a provides: In 227(b)(3) and its regulalions. parlicular, section permitted the laws or ruleso1by A personor entitymay, if otherwise courtol'that State courtof a State, bring in an appropriate (A) an actionbased a violationof this subsection the regulations or on prescribed to underthis subsection enjoin suchviolation, lossfrom sucha violation,or to (B) an actionto recoverfor actualmonetary is or for receive$500in damages eachsuchviolation,whichever greater, (C) both of the abovcactions.

26 47u.s.c.Q227(bX3XA)-(c). 27 28
C A S I :N O . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 5 of 10

1

I

Plaintiffis alleging violations section of 227(b)(I)(A)(iii). Plaintiff-s See Complaint. C. THE COURTLACKS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER ANY CLATMSBROUGHTPURSUANT SECTTON TO 227(b)(3). A maioritv theCircuitCourts. of includins NinthCircuit. the have heldthalthe'I'CPA
jurisdictionover claimsbroughtundersection vestsstatecourtswith exclusive 227(b)(3).See Dun-RiteOonstr., Inc. t,.AmazingTickets, Inc.,No. 04-3216.2004 WL 3239533,at*2 (6th Cir. Dec. 16.2004)("state courts'maintenance exclusive.jurisdiction privatcrightsof aclion of over underthe'l'CPAand I-ederal courls'concomitant lackol-.jurisdiction hcarsuchprivatcclaims to

2
-) 4

5 6 7 8 9

M . F l I 1 0 [ i s ] w e l l s e t t l e d . " ) ; u r p h ) , vL a n i e r , 2 0 4 . 3 d9 1 1 , 9 1 3( g t hC i r . 2 0 0 0 ) ; : r i c N c t , n c . v . V e l o c ' i t v F.3d513,520(3d Cir. 1998); 1 1 Net,Lnc.,156 I'oxhallRealtv Luv,O_tlice,s, v.'l'elecomnt,r. Inc.

1 2 Premium Servs., Ltd., 156F.3d 432,438(2d Cir. 1998);l,,lic'hol.sont,. Iloolers o-f lugusta, Inc.,
1 a I J

136lr.3d 1287,1289,modified.140 898 (llth Ciir.1998),('hair King, Inc'., Ilouston F.3d v. ( l e l l u l u C o r p . ,1 3 1l r . 3 d 0 7 , 5 1 4 5 t hC i r . 1 9 9 7 )I;n t ' l S t ' i . . 1 0l6 . 3 d 11 1 5 2 . r ( 5 r a

t4 15 l6 17
ln Murph! v. Lanier,the Ninth Circuit cameto "the somewhat unusual conclusion that

1 8 statecourtshaveexclusive jurisdictionover a cause actioncreated of by" a federalstatute. 19 20 21

specifically, 227(b)(3) the TCPA. Murph)t Lunier.204 F.3d9l l. 915 (9th Cir. section of v.

2000)(quoting with the lrourlh Int'l Sci..106I".3dat 1150). ln Murph!, theNinlh Circuitagreed

Science that Congress not intendto granl lbderaldistrict did 22 Circuit's linding in Intcrnational
z)

jurisdictionover privatecauses actionundersection 227(b)(3)of thc courts of

'I'CPA.

Id. at913;

24 25 26 27 28

was seeInt'l Sci.,106 F.3dat 115. The FourthCircuit's holdingin InlernationulScience

D C A S I N O . 0 7 V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) , C

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 6 of 10

, t

supponed both the language the'|CPA and its legislative by of history. SeeInt'l Sci.106Ir.3dat
-

2
a

1152;' Murphv,204 F.3d 913. at

A, '

jurisdiction While section grants 227(b)(3) state courts exclusive over private causes of jurisdiclion action, scction 227(1)(2) cxplicitlyconfers federal district courts with exclusive over actions initiated the states. by Int'l Sci.,l06 tr.3dal1152. 'l'hc I.ourth Clircuit lirund"it

5 6 , g 9 10 ll

significant that in enacting TCPA, Congress the wrote precisely. making.iurisdictional distinctions the very samesection the Act by providingthat privateactionsmay be brought in of in appropriate statecourtsandthat actionsby the s1a1es must bc brouglitin thc fcdcralcourts." Id liurthermore, lrourth the Clircuit lbundthatthe legislative historysupported conclusion thc thatno l-edcraljurisdiction existsfor claimsinitiated undcrscction 227(b)(3) (longrcss as intended providea"speedy,efl'ective, inexpensive to and rcmcdy." Murpbt 204 tr.3dat 9l-i. Privateactionsunderthe 'fCPA shouldtherelbre treated smallclaimsresolved state be as in

12
l3 14 l5 l6 17 l8 Iq 20
)1

c o u r t s o l o n g a s t h e s t a t e a l l o w s s u c h a c t Ii t l n ( c i t i n g n l ' l S t j . . 1 0 6 r . 3 d a 1 1 , 5 2 ) . o . s. I l 1 Accordingly. claimalleged a undersection 227(b)(3) o1'thc'l'CPn docsnot conlbrl-ederal ( q u c s t i o n . j u r i s d i c t i o n .eW u t . s o n l , l ( ' 0 G r o u r tI,n t ' . . 1 6 2 l ; . u p p 2 d 6 1 1 . 6 4 6 l : . D .l ' } a . Se v. S . 2006);Muninezv. IJullas, WL at Civ. No. 04-785-PHX-RGS.2006 2547368. *1 (D. Ariz. Aug. at 8 31. 2006),Brodeurv. SwanF.in.Corp.,No. 4:05CV241 DDN. 2006WL 950208, t3 (E.D. v. No. C 02-4057M.l.l,2003 WL 926853, Mo. Apr. I l. 2006);Redqfining Progress Fax.com" a t * 2 ( N . D .C a l .M a r .3 . 2 0 0 3 . 1 .

22
aa

^^ z+

25 /t/ 26 2 2g 7 6 D C A S E O . 0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 7 of 10

r I 2 3
4'

District Courtsrvithinthe Ninth Circuit haveinterpreled Murphv to fbreclose l-ederal jurisdictionof TCPA claims. SeeKinder v. Citibank,No. 99-ClV-2500 (JAH). 2000 question W Wt- 1409762. *3 (S.D.Cal. Sept.14,2000)("Murphy stands two narrowpropositions: at (1) for Congress not intendthe TCPA to conferfbderaldistrictcourtswith.lurisdiction did ovcr private actions, (2) the general and question fcderal statulc,28 U.S.CI. 1331. docsnot apply.").Sca S ulso Bqtclston Assel v. Acceptance, LL(|. 496 Ir.Supp.2d. 1101. I 10ti,No. Cl06-04999-JClS, at N.D. Cal. July 23,2007)("This Court is boundby the Ninth Circuit's decisionin Murph)tv. jurisdictionfor claimspursuant the'l-CPA. .S'ec Lunier, which precludes federalquestion to M u r p h y . 2 0 4 . 3 da t 9 1 5 . " ) . F D. D E F E N D A N T H A S W A I V E D A N Y R I G H T T O A S S E R TT H A T T H I S C O U R T H A S J U R I S D I C T I O NB A S E , D N D I V E R S I T Y o F C I T I Z F ] , N S H I P , R A N Y o O O T H E R G R O U N D ,A N D T H r S C O U R T D O E S N O T H A V E T H E P O W E R T O G R A N T D E F E N D A N TL E A V E T O A M E N D T H E N O T I C E O F R E M O V A L T O ADD A |VEWALLEGEGATION OF DIVERSITY. Regardless whetheror not Defendant of could haveproperlyremovedthis casebased on Diversityof Citizenship, Defendant failedto state that basiswhcn it rcmovcdand it haslong

5 6 , 8 9 10 l1 12 13 14 IJ 16
l l

18
l9

waived rightto do so. Therefore. Courtdoes havcsubjccl since its not malter.jurisdiction this
overthc instant ction. a

20
a1

LI

. Defendant was served and comnlaintin this caseon October1^2001 with the summons had 3l SceExhibitB. Pursuant 28 tl.S.C.$ 1446(b). Defendant until October . 2007to file a to l Coure N o t i c e o f R e m o v a l , s t a t i n g a i l b a s e s f b r j u r i s d i c t i o n o f t h i s c a s e i n t h iIso w e v t . r . w h e n Defendant filed its Noticeof Removalon October3 I . 2007.it allegcdonly one ( 1) basisIbr jurisdiction. Scc Def'endant's Noticeo1 jurisdictionin this court:federalquestion matter subject 7 7 D C A S E O .0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B ) N

22
^, A + 25 26 2 28

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 8 of 10

, 2 3 4

Removal,Docket No. 1. Therefore,Def'endant foreverwaived any and all right to removahas based any otherjurisdictional on ground. Specifically. Def-endant waivedany right to assert has jurisdictionbased Diversityof Citizenship. that this courthassubject matter on

6 , 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
.t<

Morcovcr.while procedural defects normallywaivedif the partyscckingrcmanddoes are not file a motion to remand within 30 daysof service the noticcof rcmoval,lack of f'cderal of jurisdictionis neverwaived. 28 U.S.C.$ 1aa7(.c),Libhart v. SantaMonicaDairv subiect matter c,, 19'h cir. 19ig) 5g2F2d1062.1065.

Courtshavedi.screlionary powerto grantthe removingparly lcavcto amcnddcl'cclivc removalnolicesv,ithinthe 3)-duy removul period. I)efectsin the lbrm or conlentol'the removal papersareusuallynotiurisdictionalandmay be curedby amendmcnl alicr removal;e.g.,to furnishthe required copiesof the statecourt file. l,lalionalAudubonSoc'ie\tv.Department q/ (E.D.CA 1980) Waler& Pou,er o-f'l.o,s Angclcs 496 F.Supp.499.503. Whcrcthc rcquisitc grounds not omitted entirely.but rather merelydelbclive lorm, lailure in are are iurisdictional to statevalid grounds removalmaybe curedby post-rcmoval for arncndmcnt thc notice,as of long as suchjurisdictionin fact existedat the time of removal. See28 U.S.C.$ 1653

tJ

16 17 l8 19 20
) l

"Defective may upon in allegations ofjurisdiction beamended, terms. thetrialor appellate supra,150 t'3d a|654. courts"; McMahon Bunn-)-lvlatic see v. Oorp..

22

24 25 jurisdictional in basis its Notice in any However, Defendant thiscase not allege other did

'I'herefore, 26 of Removal thelatest . 31,2007 and datethatit couldhavedonesowasOctober
' '117 8

28

C A S I IN O . 0 7 C V 2 1 3 2D M S ( A J B )

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 9 of 10

,,
I

Def'endant longerhasthe right to amendits Noticeof Removal. Assuming,1brthe sakeof no argument, that the Court is willing to overlookDefendant's failureto comply with the 30 day time limit, Defendant's failureto allegeDiversityof Citizenship, any otherjurisdictionalbasis, or is no1aprocedurul defeclwhich canbe curedby amendmcnt isitatle/cctive ullegationolnor therewas ru allegutionof Diversityof Citizenship subject matter .jurisdiction.To the contrary, whatsoever. Because removalnoticemust be flled within 30 daysafier the the .jurisdiction (28 complaintis received I-J.S.C. 1447(c)). it may not be amended add asaparutcbasisfor to $ period. O'Hallrtrunt,. (Jnit,ersil-y,o-f'Wa,;hinglon ,.-nuul.iurisdiction afler the 3O-day Cir. 19'h 1 9 8 8 8 5 6F 2 dI 3 7 s .1 3 8 r . ) E. P L A I N T I F F A N D D E F E N D A N T A R E B O T H R E S I D E N T SO F T H E S T A T E O F CALIF'oRNIA AND THEREFORENOT "DIvERSE." ('onrplaint.I)cf'cndant, I)laintilTis resident a o1'the Statco1-California. Plaintill-s ,Scc although incorporated Delaware. physically in is located andhasits principlcplaccol'busincss in

2 3 4 ' 5 6 ,, g 9 l0 ll 12

t3
14
l)

l6 17
1o Ia

o1'(]had Austin. in the State Calilbrnia.SccPlaintiffs Complaint; of trxhibitA; l)eclaration Therefore, thereis no thereis not "diversity"amongthe parties.See28 U.S.C.$ 1332. Because diversityof citizenship and Plaintiffhasestablished thereis no federal that amongthe parties question has matter.iurisdiction f-ederal in courts ovcr'['CPAclaims,lhis C'ourt no basis subiect

l9 20
zl

jurisdictionand the only properactionby the Courl is to rcmandthis caseback for subjectmatter to San Diego SuperiorCourt, where it was originally filed.

22

23 ut 24 nr
25
26 2 28 7 q D N C A S E O .0 7C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B )

ut

Case 3:07-cv-02132-DMS-AJB

Document 39-2

Filed 02/22/2008

Page 10 of 10

1 2
a -)

V. CONCLUSION For all of the reasons stated above,PlaintifTrespectfully requests this Court granthis that Motion to Remand. DATED: February 22,2008 By: /s/ ChadAuslin CHAD AIISTIN. Iisq..Attorney fbr Plaintill..lAMtls M. KINDITR Emai : chadausli I n(a)cox. nct

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 l3 t4 l5 l6
1 1 t t

18 19 20 2l 22
1,-)

24 25 26 27 28 10
D N C A S E O .0 7 C V 2 1 3 2 M S( A J B )