Case 5:22-cv-00078-CJC-KK Document 7 Filed 01/18/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:85

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EASTERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ROBERTA CERVANTES, ) Case No.: EDCV 22-00078-CJC (KKx) ) 13 ) ) Plaintiff, 14 ) ) v. 15 ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY 16 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA ) SUPERIOR COURT ) 17 PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP ) and DOES 1-20, inclusive, ) 18 ) ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) 21 22 Plaintiff Roberta Cervantes filed this case in June 2019 in Riverside County state 23 court alleging that Defendant Southern California Permanente Medical Group wrongfully 24 terminated her. (See Dkt. 1, Ex. 2 [Complaint]; Dkt. 1, Ex. 5 [Third Amended 25 Complaint, hereinafter “TAC”].) In her Third Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges four 26 state law claims: wrongful termination in breach of implied contract, (2) intentional 27 infliction of emotional distress, (3) negligence, and (4) breach of the implied covenant of 28 good faith and fair dealing.

-1- Case 5:22-cv-00078-CJC-KK Document 7 Filed 01/18/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:86

1 Plaintiff now seeks to remove the case to federal court. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of 2 Removal, hereinafter “NOR”].) Plaintiff does not assert that this Court has federal 3 question or diversity jurisdiction. (See id.; see Dkt. 1, Ex. 6 [Declaration of Brad J. 4 Husen, hereinafter “Husen Decl.”] ¶ 3 [Plaintiff’s counsel stating that he disagrees that a 5 federal court has exclusive jurisdiction over his claims].) Rather, in support of federal 6 jurisdiction, Plaintiff states only that on November 8, 2021, a state court judge ordered 7 her to file her case in federal court because her Third Amended Complaint included one 8 or more claims involving a federal question. (NOR.) The state court’s order does not 9 describe which claim involves a federal question, and the Court has been unable to 10 identify one. (See Dkt. 1, Ex. 1; TAC.) Nor does diversity jurisdiction appear to be 11 present, as Plaintiff alleges that both parties are California residents. (TAC ¶¶ 2, 5.) 12 13 Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or 14 not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 15 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court’s duty to establish subject 16 matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.”). Principles of 17 federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal] 18 jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & 19 Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more jealously 20 guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 21 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected 22 if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 23 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “The court may—indeed must—remand an action sua 24 sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, 25 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). The removal statute is strictly 26 construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. 27 28

-2- Case 5:22-cv-00078-CJC-KK Document 7 Filed 01/18/22 Page3of3 Page ID #:87

1 Under the federal removal statute, only a defendant may remove a civil action filed 2 ||in state court to a federal district court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441; see In re Walker, 375 F.2d 678, 3 11678 (9th Cir. 1967) (per curiam) (“No right exists in favor of a person who, as plaintiff, 4 || has filed an action in state court, to cause the removal of such action to a federal 5 ||court.”); ASAP Copy & Print v. Canon Bus. Sols., Inc., 643 F. App’x 650, 652 (9th Cir. 6 ||2016) (explaining that federal removal statutes “permit[ | removal only by defendants in 7 || state court actions’) (emphasis added) (citing Shamrock Oil, 313 U.S. at 104-05) 8 || (explaining that Congress intended to limit the right to removal to only defendants and 9 || that a plaintiff may not remove a suit containing a counterclaim); Jn re Hartford Litig. 10 || Cases, 642 F. App’x 733, 736 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The [appellants] were plaintiffs in the 11 || state court, and therefore cannot use the removal statutes they invoke.”) (citing 28 U.S.C. 12 || §§ 1441, 1443, 1446). 13 14 Defendant chose not to remove this case. (See Husen Decl. 4 4 [explaining that 15 || defense counsel indicated that they would not seek removal to federal court].) Because 16 || Plaintiff may not remove it, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to Riverside 17 || County Superior Court. 18 19 DATED: January 18, 2022 Zo ( je 20 yy ee 21 CORMAC J. CARNEY 22 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.