Starks v. FPI Management, et al.

Summary

The magistrate judge recommends granting Kevin Starks’s motion to remand an action removed from San Joaquin County Superior Court and denying defendants’ motions to dismiss without prejudice. The court concludes that the complaint does not clearly present a federal question, that FCRA preemption does not support removal, and that complete diversity is absent. The findings and recommendations were issued pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), with objections due within fourteen days.

Holdings

1. The complaint did not clearly present a federal question because its claims were pleaded under California Civil Code provisions, and references to federal statutes did not establish that plaintiff was asserting federal causes of action or seeking a remedy available only under federal law.
2. Defendants did not establish that the FCRA completely preempted plaintiff's state-law claims or otherwise provided a basis for removal.
3. Diversity jurisdiction did not support removal because the allegations identified California citizenship for defendants Stonebrier and Patmon, defeating complete diversity.
4. The motions to dismiss should be denied without prejudice because the court should not reach the merits after determining that remand was appropriate.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the complaint presented a federal question on its face sufficient to support removal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a).
2. Whether the plaintiff's California credit-reporting claims were completely preempted by the Fair Credit Reporting Act such that removal was proper.
3. Whether diversity jurisdiction supported removal despite the presence of California defendants.
4. Whether the court should decide defendants' motions to dismiss after determining that remand was appropriate.

Disposition

remanded