Dee Collins v. West Coast Ultrasound Institute Inc
5:12-cv-01795
C.D. Cal.Dec 8, 2012Background
- Collins filed a state-court action on May 18, 2012 asserting various state-law claims and RICO against WCUI in San Bernardino County.
- WCUI removed the Original Action to federal court on June 28, 2012 based on federal-question jurisdiction.
- Collins filed a First Amended Complaint in the Original Action on July 26, 2012; it omitted the RICO claim and added further allegations.
- The parties stipulated to remand, and the case was remanded to state court on August 8, 2012.
- Collins later filed a First Amended Class Action Complaint in Superior Court asserting new federal- and state-law theories; WCUI removed again on October 17, 2012.
- Collins moved to remand on November 16, 2012; the court granted remand and remanded the case to state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal was proper under federal-question jurisdiction | Collins's claims can be supported by independent state theories; federal law not essential. | Collins's FAC embeds federal issues that are crucial to the case, satisfying Grable-Marinduque. | Removal improper; no necessary federal question. |
| Whether Rains v. Criterion Sys. controls the removal analysis | State-law claims rely on California law, with federal statutes referenced only as support. | Rains does not apply because federal issues are embedded in the state claims. | Rains controls; removal remains improper. |
| Whether the Grable/Marinduque test is met for federal jurisdiction | No single federal issue is necessary to state-law claims; independent theories exist. | The FAC contains a substantial federal issue embedded in the state claims. | Grable/Marinduque test not satisfied; removal improper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 1996) (state and federal theories can support a claim without federal jurisdiction)
- Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (U.S. 2005) (federal issue must be substantial and necessary to the claim)
- Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083 (9th Cir. 2009) (embedded federal issue must be substantial and necessary)
- Sacks v. Dietrich, 663 F.3d 1065 (9th Cir. 2011) (standard for removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441)
- Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (U.S. 2002) (strict construction of the removal statute)
- Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1988) (addressed federal-question jurisdiction overlapping state claims)