(PS) Liam Meyer Irrevocable Trust v. Chan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIAM MEYER TRUST AND LIAM No. 2:23-cv-1472 KJM SCR MEYER, 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER v. 14 PEGGY PICKYOKE YEE, SUI CHEONG 15 CHAN, et al, 16 Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On January 27, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 20. Neither party 23 has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 24 The court has reviewed the file and agrees with the magistrate judge there is no colorable 25 federal claim and therefore the court does not have original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 26 The court also agrees with the recommendation to remand to state court albeit on different 27 grounds. The magistrate judge recommended remand of the remaining state law claims by citing 28 to Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc. v. Wullschleger. 145 S.Ct. 41 (2025). In Royal Canin, the Supreme 1 | Court held that when a defendant removes to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction 2 || and then the plaintiff subsequently amends his complaint and removes his federal claims, federal 3 || courts no longer have jurisdiction over the action and must remand to state court. See id. at 49- 4 | 50. Here, the jurisdictional question is slightly different: does a federal court continue to have 5 || jurisdiction when a defendant removes to federal court on federal question jurisdiction and the 6 || plaintiffs amend their complaint to substitute federal claims for different and uncolorable federal 7 || claims? See F & Rs at 3-5. The court here hesitates to rely on Royal Canin as it does not 8 | explicitly answer this question. The court instead remands using its discretionary powers under 9 || 28US.C. § 1367(c)(3), allowing the court to decline supplemental jurisdiction when it has 10 | “dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction.” 11 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 12 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 27, 2025 (ECF No. 20), are adopted 13 | in full; 14 2. This action 1s remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court, as provided by 15 | 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 16 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close the case. 17 | DATED: March 4, 2025.

19 □ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28