Velez v. Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KRISTOPHER VELEZ, No. 2:18-cv-01914-MCE-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BAIL HOTLINE BAIL BONDS, INC., et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This lawsuit arises from the officer-involved shooting of Plaintiff Kristopher Velez 18 (“Plaintiff”) on September 18, 2017. Plaintiff’s complaint, initially filed in state court, was 19 removed here on federal question grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 inasmuch as 20 Plaintiff’s lawsuit included claims made pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 21 Defendants City of Sacramento and police officers John Harshbarger and Daniel 22 Farnsworth (“City Defendants”). On January 21, 2022, the City Defendants were 23 dismissed with prejudice pursuant to a good faith settlement. ECF No. 64. This action is 24 now proceeding against Defendants Bail Hotline Bail Bonds, Inc., American Surety 25 Company, Alex Hastings, Fugitive Recovery Investigations, Inc., and Brian Smith 26 (collectively, “Bail Defendants”) on state law negligence and trespass claims. See 27 Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 31. Presently before the Court is Bail Defendants’ Motion 28 for Summary Judgment as to those remaining claims. ECF No. 44. 1 Before reaching the merits of Bail Defendants’ Motion, however, the Court must 2 || scrutinize the basis for its own jurisdiction. Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction and 3 | are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 4 | Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The burden of establishing the contrary rests 5 || upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. Because subject matter jurisdiction involves a 6 || court’s power to hear a case, it can never be forfeited or waived. United States v. 7 | Cotton, 535 U.S. 625, 630 (2002). Accordingly, lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be 8 || raised by the district court sua sponte. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 9 | 583 (1999). Indeed, courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether 10 | subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” 11 | Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (requiring 12 | the court to dismiss the action if subject matter jurisdiction is lacking). While a district 13 || court may not sua sponte remand a case for procedural defects, a court may sua sponte 14 | remand a case if it lacks jurisdiction. Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. 15 || Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). 16 Because all federal claims upon which federal jurisdiction was based have been 17 || dismissed, the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over this matter. See 18 | 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case back to 19 || the originating state court, the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, for 20 | final adjudication.! Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), the Clerk of Court is ordered to mail 21 || acertified copy of this Order of remand to the clerk of the originating state court. The 22 || state court may thereupon proceed with this case. The Clerk of Court shall thereafter 23 || close the case in this Court. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || Dated: March 25, 2022 Wh. AK, 26 MORRISON C. LEK. 57 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 ' Bail Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 44, is thus DENIED as moot.