1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COUNTY OF NEVADA, Case No. 2:24-cv-03245-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION TO

REMAND

14 WILD EARTH PROPERTY, LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On November 22, 2024, Defendant John Williams, who proceeds without counsel, 18 removed this action from Nevada County Superior Court.1 (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons 19 that follow, the undersigned recommends this case be REMANDED to the Nevada 20 County Superior Court. 21 I. LEGAL STANDARDS 22 A. Removal and Remand 23 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) states “. . . any civil action brought in a State court of which 24 the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the 25 defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States . . . .” If at any time 26 before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 27 1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 28 Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c)(21). 1 the case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 2 B. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may hear only those cases 4 authorized by federal law. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 5 Jurisdiction is a threshold inquiry, and “[f]ederal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction, 6 unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record.” Casey v. Lewis, 4 F.3d 1516, 7 1519 (9th Cir. 1993) (quotations omitted). Without jurisdiction, the district court cannot 8 decide the merits of a case or order any relief and must dismiss the case. See Morongo 9 Band of Mission Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1380 (9th Cir. 10 1988). 11 A federal court’s jurisdiction may be established in one of two ways: actions 12 arising under federal law or those between citizens of different states in which the 13 alleged damages exceed $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. “Subject-matter jurisdiction 14 can never be waived or forfeited,” and “courts are obligated to consider sua sponte” 15 subject matter jurisdiction even when not raised by the parties. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 16 U.S. 134, 141 (2012). 17 II. DISCUSSION 18 This case was removed to federal court on August 19, 2024 by Defendant John 19 Williams, who proceeds without counsel. (ECF No. 1.) A review of the operative 20 Complaint (ECF No. 1 at 121-175) indicates the Court does not have subject matter 21 jurisdiction, requiring remand. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 22 First, Plaintiff’s claims do not arise under federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 23 Plaintiff filed a “Petition for Order to Abate Substandard Building and Appointment of 24 Receiver” pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code §§ 17960-17992 against Defendants 25 Wild Earth Property, LLC and John Williams. Compl. (ECF No. 1 at 122.) In his notice of 26 removal, Defendant asserts the basis for removal is that he “believe[s] that the action of 27 this case does violate my constitutional and property rights[.]” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) 28 However, there is no federal constitutional claims asserted in the Complaint. See Vaden 1 | v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59-62 (2009) (“Under the longstanding well-pleaded 2 || complaint rule, . . . a suit ‘arises under’ federal law only when the plaintiff's statement of 3 || his own cause of action shows that it is based upon federal law.”). 4 Second, complete diversity of the parties is lacking here. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 5 || According to the allegations in the Complaint, Plaintiff County of Nevada, Defendant Wild 6 | Earth Property, LLC and Defendant John Williams are all residents of California. Compl. 7 | at 121, 150. Thus, this case must be remanded back to the Nevada County Superior 8 | Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Ho v. Russi, 45 F.4th 1083, 1086 (9th 9 | Cir. 2022) (noting the district court may issue orders “without notice where lack of 10 | jurisdiction appears on the face of the complaint and is obviously not curable”). 11 RECOMMENDATIONS 12 Based upon the findings above, the Court RECOMMENDS: 13 1. This case be REMANDED back to the Nevada County Superior Court; and 14 2. The Clerk of the Court be directed to CLOSE this case. 15 | These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 16 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within 14 days 17 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 18 || objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. This document should be 19 | captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply 20 | to the objections shall be served on all parties and filed with the Court within 14 days 21 | after service of the objections. Failure to file objections within the specified time may 22 | waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 23 | (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Yist, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156-57 (9th Cir. 1991). 24 25 | Dated: December 3, 2024 CO i S \U 26 CHI SOO KIM 7 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 28 4, coun3245.24