Britton v. County of Santa Cruz

Background

Cove Britton and Matson Britton Architects, Inc. sued the County of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz Planning Department. The plaintiffs alleged that county permit-application procedures and two county-code provisions conflicted with California Government Code section 65943. They also brought a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal statute allowing claims against government actors for constitutional violations, alleging that the defendants violated their due-process rights by refusing to schedule a hearing on a permit appeal and refusing to accept an additional report.

The defendants removed the case from California Superior Court to federal court. They then moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing—the legally required connection to a dispute that allows a federal court to hear it. The plaintiffs moved to remand, or return, the case to state court, and requested attorney’s fees and costs resulting from the removal.

Court’s Analysis

The court held that the defendants, as the parties who removed the case, had the burden of establishing federal subject-matter jurisdiction. Regarding the § 1983 claim, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs lacked standing because the permit applications concerned properties owned by the plaintiffs’ clients, not by the plaintiffs themselves. The court treated that argument as a failure to establish standing and therefore a failure to establish federal jurisdiction over the federal claim. Under Ninth Circuit precedent, a removed case in which the plaintiff lacks Article III standing must be remanded to state court.

The court also found that the defendants had not established jurisdiction over the state-law declaratory-relief claim. The claim asked the court to compare state and county laws, so it did not arise under federal law. Diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the opinion states that both sides were citizens of California. Supplemental jurisdiction, which can allow a federal court to hear related state-law claims, was also unavailable because the court lacked original jurisdiction over the only federal claim.

Disposition

The court found that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over all of the plaintiffs’ claims and granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. It denied the plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs because the defendants had an objectively reasonable basis for removal and the plaintiffs had not shown the required bad faith. Finally, because the case was being remanded, the court denied as moot the defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings. The order did not decide the merits of the plaintiffs’ permit or due-process claims.