Opinion
No. C-00-4754 PJH
February 21, 2001
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND
Now before the court is the motion of plaintiff Eric Allen, acting in pro per, to remand this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda. Having read the parties' papers and carefully considered their arguments and the relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the court hereby GRANTS the motion for the following reasons.
Plaintiff filed this discrimination action in Alameda County Superior Court on November 27, 2000. Defendant removed the action on December 21, 2000, asserting that the action involves a federal question. Specifically, defendant contends that at least one of plaintiff's claims arise under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
A state court action is removable if the claim is one over which a federal district court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. When a case is removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must be clear from the face of the complaint in the state court action. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). As a result, the plaintiff may properly avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law. See Caterpillar Inc., v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); see also Easton v. Crossland Mortage Corp.,114 F.3d 979, 982 (9th Cir. 1997).
The face of plaintiff's complaint establishes that his discrimination, contract, and tort claims arise exclusively under California state law. In fact, plaintiff's complaint makes no mention of any federal statute or claim. Accordingly, no claim under federal law is stated. Because this court lacks jurisdiction, plaintiff's motion is GRANTED. This case was improperly removed and must be REMANDED to the Alameda Superior Court.
The hearing on this motion, previously set for February 28, 2001, is hereby VACATED. The clerk is ordered to close the file.
This order fully adjudicates the motion listed at No. 6-1 on the clerk's docket for this case.