Wong v. Kracksmith, Inc., 031919 FED9, 17-56765

Docket Nº:17-56765
Party Name:LISA WONG, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KRACKSMITH, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and BOSCHAL LEE; et al., Defendants, v. WILLIAM STOCKER, Movant-Appellant.
Judge Panel:Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Case Date:March 19, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

LISA WONG, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

KRACKSMITH, INC., Defendant-Appellant, and BOSCHAL LEE; et al., Defendants,

v.

WILLIAM STOCKER, Movant-Appellant.

No. 17-56765

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

March 19, 2019

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted March 12, 2019 [**]

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05978-SVW-E Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Before: LEAVY, BEA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM [*]

Appellants Kracksmith, Inc., and William Stocker, its attorney in this action, appeal from the district court's order remanding plaintiff's action to California state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's decision to remand a removed case. Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). We affirm.

The district court properly remanded the action to state court because appellants failed to establish that the state court could not enforce their rights. See id. at 998-99 (two-part test for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)). Contrary to appellants' contentions, appellants have not identified a California statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state court to ignore their federal civil rights. To the extent that defendants argue that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, we lack jurisdiction to review the remand order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (court lacks jurisdiction to review the district court's remand order based on § 1441); Patel, 446 F.3d at 998.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by sua sponte awarding sanctions against Stocker under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b) because Stocker filed a frivolous notice of removal. See Holgate v. Baldwin, 425 F.3d 671, 675-77 (9th Cir. 2005) (standard of review and factors for imposing Rule 11 sanctions); Barber v. Miller, 146 F.3d 707, 711 (9th Cir. 1998) (Rule 11's safe harbor provision only applies where sanctions are raised through motion of a...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP