Pickar v. Agiobenebo

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: February 27, 2024
• Docket: 3:24-cv-00364
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOSEPH PICKAR, Case No.: 24-cv-00364-JAH-KSC

12 Petitioner, ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 13 v. STATE COURT 14 ODUMYE AGIOBENEBO SR. and JOYCE AGIOBENEBO, 15 Respondents. 16 17 18 On January 25, 2024, Petitioner, Joseph Pickar (“Petitioner”), filed a Juvenile 19 Dependency Petition against Respondents, Joyce M. Agiobenebo and Odumye T 20 Agiobenebo Sr. (“Respondents”), under the California Welfare and Institutions Code 300 21 in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Meadowlark Juvenile Court for 22 Excessive Discipline / Physical Abuse and Damage of their 12-year-old child. ECF No. 1- 23 2 (“Petition”). The Petition only alleges a state law violation. Respondents, appearing pro 24 se, filed a notice of removal on February 23, 2024. ECF No. 1. For the reasons set forth 25 below, this Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over the Petition and, therefore, sua sponte 26 remands the matter to state court for all further proceedings. 27 /// 28 /// 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Legal Standard 3 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 4 Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, a federal court cannot reach the merits of any 5 dispute until it confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a 6 Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Thus, at any time during the proceedings, a district 7 court may sua sponte remand a case to state court if the district court lacks subject matter 8 jurisdiction over the case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 9 Removal of civil actions is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action 10 can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. See 11 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, a party invoking the federal 12 removal statutes must establish jurisdiction by demonstrating the existence of: (1) a 13 statutory basis; (2) a federal question; or (3) diversity of the parties. See Ely Valley Mines, 14 Inc. v. Hartford Acc. And Indem. Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1981). District courts 15 must construe the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any uncertainty as 16 to removability in favor of remanding the case to state court. See Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 17 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988). The burden to demonstrate federal subject matter jurisdiction 18 over the case is on the removing party. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 19 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). 20 II. Analysis 21 Upon review of the notice of removal and the Petition, this Court finds it appropriate 22 to sua sponte remand the case to state court because the notice of removal fails to establish 23 a proper basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. The Petition asserts a cause of action under the 24 California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 300 which does not arise under federal 25 law. That Respondents assert violations of their constitutional rights and the Code of 26 Federal Regulations during the state court proceedings (i.e., a federal defense) fails to 27 establish federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392 (“[F]ederal 28 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s 1 || properly pleaded complaint.”). Accordingly, the Court deems it appropriate to sua sponte 2 ||remand the matter to state court. 3 CONCLUSION AND ORDER 4 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the instant Petition is sua 5 || sponte REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings. 6 7 ||DATED: February 27, 2024 VU 5 L-t— 9 JOFIN A. HOUSTON | 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28