Steven Quinn Singleton v. Scott John Jordan

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 17, 2026
• Docket: 1:26-cv-02019
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 STEVEN QUINN SINGLETON, Case No. 1:26-cv-02019-EPG 11 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS 12 v. CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT 13 SCOTT JOHN JORDAN, (ECF No. 1) 14 Defendant. 15 16 I. INTRODUCTION 17 On March 12, 2026, Plaintiff Steven Quinn Singleton filed a notice of removal as to his 18 state court case originally filed in the Merced County Superior Court. (ECF No. 1). In this 19 underlying state case—Singleton v. Jordan, 26cv1020—he sues his former attorney for legal 20 malpractice. (Id. at 55). 21 After reviewing the notice of removal and state court complaint, the Court will order 22 Plaintiff to show cause why the case should not be remanded to state court for improper removal 23 and lack of Federal jurisdiction. 24 II. LEGAL STANDARDS 25 Under certain circumstances, a defendant may remove a state court case to Federal court: 26 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 27 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 28 1 where such action is pending. 2 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (emphasis added). Importantly, “[n]o language in Section 1441 provides a 3 textual basis for removal by a plaintiff.” Hopkins v. Am. Home Mortg. Servicing, Inc., No. C-13- 4 00869 DMR, 2013 WL 1800049, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2013). Additionally, “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian 5 Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). And “[a] federal court is presumed to lack 6 jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 7 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Rsrv., 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989). “The presence or 8 absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which 9 provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of 10 the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 11 (1987). “Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state 12 court.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per 13 curiam). 14 Lastly, “it is well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter 15 jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action, even on appeal.”’ Nevada 16 v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 17 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.2002)); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time 18 that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). “[I]ndeed, [the Ninth 19 Circuit has] held that the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. 20 Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). 21 III. DISCUSSION 22 Plaintiff’s notice of removal attaches the underlying state court complaint in Singleton v. Jordan, 26cv1020, which shows that he is the Plaintiff in that case. However, only a defendant 23 may remove a state court case to Federal court and improperly removed actions should be 24 remanded to state court. See Okot v. Callahan, 788 F.2d 631, 633 (9th Cir. 1986) (noting that a 25 petitioner, in a “state court proceeding, had no power to remove his own case”; rather, “[r]emoval 26 [was] available only to defendants”). 27 Further, Plaintiff’s notice of removal states that he “does not seek removal on the basis of 28 1 | jurisdiction under section Title 28 U.S.C. 1332(a), but under the procedure of Federal question.” 2 | (ECF No. 1, p. 5). The relevant statute he relies on, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, provides district courts 3 | with “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 4 | the United States.” However, Plaintiffs state court complaint alleges a legal malpractice claim 5 | under California law, not any Federal claim to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1, p. 6 55); see Bordelon v. Singh, No. 24-CV-01173-JST, 2024 WL 4887503, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 7 2024) (“Plaintiff does not allege a federal question and has only alleged a state law claim of legal g malpractice... .”). 9 Accordingly, the Court will order Plaintiff to show cause why this case should not be remanded to state court for improper removal and lack of Federal jurisdiction. ° IV. ORDER " For the reasons given above, IT IS ORDERED as follows: 2 1. By no later than March 27, 2026, Plaintiff shall file a response to this order, showing 13 cause why this case should not be remanded to state court. 2. Plaintiffs failure to timely comply with this order may result in the remand of this case to I5 state court without any further opportunity to respond. 16 17 | ITIS SO ORDERED. 'S | Dated: _-March 17, 2026 [Joe hey — 19 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28