Wagner v. Shasta County ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CINDY WAGNER, No. 2:20-cv-00403-JAM-DMC 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND 13 SHASTA COUNTY; SHASTA COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; and 14 DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Cindy Wagner filed suit against Shasta County and its 18 sheriff’s department in Shasta County Superior Court. See Ex. A 19 to Notice of Removal (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1. Defendants removed 20 the case to federal court, invoking this Court’s federal question 21 jurisdiction and supplemental jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 22 1 (citing 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343). Wagner timely filed a motion 23 to remand, but failed to first satisfy the Court’s meet-and- 24 confer requirements. See Mot. to Remand (“Mot.”), ECF No. 4; 25 Order re Filing Requirements, ECF No. 2-2. The Court dismissed 26 her motion on this ground. ECF No. 9. 27 Five days later, Wagner filed a response to the Court’s 28 dismissal. ECF No. 10. Good cause appearing, the Court sua 1 sponte VACATES its dismissal and decides Wagner’s motion on the 2 merits, based on her opening brief and Defendants’ opposition, 3 ECF No. 8.1 But for the reasons discussed below, Wagner’s motion 4 to remand is nonetheless denied. 5 6 I. OPINION 7 A defendant may remove a case from state to federal court if 8 the federal court would have had jurisdiction over the matter 9 were it originally filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; Moore-Tomas v. 10 Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1243 (9th Cir. 2009). The 11 defendant then bears the burden of establishing that removal is 12 proper. Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 13 Although the federal removal statute carries with it a “strong 14 presumption against removal,” id., a plaintiff may not defeat 15 removal by “artfully pleading” a federal cause of action as a 16 state claim. Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 17 475 (1998). 18 District courts have federal question jurisdiction over all 19 suits “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 20 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The first five claims in 21 Wagner’s complaint allege Defendants’ unconstitutional conduct 22 violated 42 U.S.C. § 1983—a federal statute. Compl. ¶¶ 39-90. 23 The sixth claim contends that same conduct also gives rise to a 24 Bane Act claim under state law. Compl. ¶¶ 91-94. Lastly, Wagner 25 raises claims of negligence, battery, and intentional infliction 26 of emotional distress. Compl. ¶¶ 95-115. 27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without 28 oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). WwOAOD 2 CUNT PAINE IVINS RU I eee PAY VV VI GV 1 There is simply no denying that Wagner’s section 1983 claims 2 arise under federal law. And as Defendants’ opposition argues, 3 Raines v. Criterion Sys. Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 343 (9th Cir. 1996) 4 does not alter this conclusion. Opp’n at 5. The Court has 5 federal-question jurisdiction over Wagner’s first five causes of 6 action. Moreover, this Court has supplemental jurisdiction over 7 Wagner’s four state-law claims. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367. These 8 claims arise out of the same factual allegations as Wagner's 9 federal claims, and are “so related” to the federal claims “that 10 they form part of the same case or controversy.” Id. The 11 considerations set forth in section 1367(c) do not provide the 12 Court with any compelling basis for declining to exercise 13 supplemental jurisdiction here. 14 The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Wagner’s 15 federal and state law claims. Removal was therefore proper. 16 17 Il. ORDER 18 For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES 19 | Plaintiff’s motion to remand. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: May 19, 2020 22 Me 23 Benlek, sunk 24 25 26 27 28