1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9

10 DARLENE JULIE SIMPSON, 11 Plaintiff, No. C 23-05728 WHA

12 v.

13 NINA MARIA ALVES, RICHARD E. ORDER GRANTING MOTION JARRATT, JR., and DOES 1–25, inclusive, TO REMAND 14 Defendants. 15

16 17 In this dispute over the Jarratt Family Trust and its property, plaintiff Darlene Julie 18 Simpson moves to remand the action back to Alameda County Superior Court (Dkt. No. 5). 19 According to plaintiff, removal of this action was improper on the merits given that no federal 20 question exists on the face of the complaint, the minimum amount in controversy is not 21 satisfied, and the forum-defendant rule applies. Moreover, according to plaintiff, removal of 22 this action was procedurally improper because removing defendant Nina Maria Alves failed to 23 join all defendants. 24 Defendant Alves, representing herself pro se, counters that plaintiff caused the removal 25 of over a million dollars’ worth of gold, silver, furs, diamonds, and other precious stones and 26 jewels from the Jarratt family home, and that plaintiff obstructed justice by hiring agents who 27 took those items and forced defendants to be removed from the home without notice or due 1 supplemental filings, including one with an attached order from the probate court that 2 suspended plaintiff as acting trustee (Dkt. No. 20 at 5–6; see also Dkt. Nos. 18, 22). 3 According to defendant Alves, plaintiff now lacks standing to move this district court to 4 remand, so this district court should hear a forthcoming cross-complaint for violations of 5 defendants’ constitutionally protected civil rights (Dkt. No. 20 at 2–3). 6 It may (or may not) be true that plaintiff now lacks standing to bring her claims and that 7 defendants’ rights have been violated, but those will be questions for the state court with 8 jurisdiction over the matter. This order follows full briefing and oral argument. For the 9 following reasons, the motion to remand is GRANTED. 10 A defendant may remove an action based on federal-question jurisdiction or diversity 11 jurisdiction.

. That is because the district court has subject-matter 12 jurisdiction to hear “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 13 United States,” as well as those where there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount 14 in controversy exceeds $75,000.

§§ 1331–32. “If at any time before final judgment it 15 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” Id. 16 § 1447(c). 17 Starting with federal-question jurisdiction, plaintiff’s complaint contains two claims 18 under California state law for trespass and conversion (Dkt. No. 1 at 17–22). Although 19 defendant Alves’s filings refer to constitutional violations and a forthcoming cross-complaint 20 based on those constitutional violations, that alone cannot create federal-question jurisdiction. 21 “[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 22 defense.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

(1987). Note that applies even if 23 plaintiff lacks standing to bring her claims and “even if both parties concede that the federal 24 defense is the only question truly at issue.”

25 Turning to diversity jurisdiction, even if the amount in controversy is greater than 26 $75,000, it remains the case that this action “may not be removed if any of the parties in 27 interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action 1 defendant’ rule ‘reflects the belief that [federal] diversity jurisdiction is unnecessary because 2 there is less reason to fear state court prejudice against the defendants if one or more of them is 3 from the forum state,’” so “the presence of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars 4 removal.” Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Ca.,

, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) 5 (quoting Erwin Chemerinsky, Federal Jurisdiction § 5.5, at 345 (4th ed. 2003), and citing 6

(b)). Here, it is undisputed that defendant Alves (and defendant Richard E. 7 Jarratt, Jr., for that matter,) is a resident of California such that the forum-defendant rule 8 applies. This too ties the Court’s hands. 9 Finally, removal here was procedurally improper. “When a civil action is removed solely 10 under section 1441(a), all defendants who have been properly joined and served must join in or 11 consent to the removal of the action.”

(b)(2)(A). The notice of removal 12 reflects that defendant Alves did not obtain the joinder of defendant Jarratt in November 2023 13 (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-16), and the docket reflects that she likewise did not obtain his consent to 14 removal in the months that have since passed. 3 15 Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED. a 16 IT IS SO ORDERED.

18 Dated: February 15, 2024. 19 La Pee ILLIAM ALSUP 21 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28