Triton Property Investments, LLC v. George
- Vince Chhabria
- 3:21-cv-03024
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Triton Property Investments v. George, Judge Chhabria remanded the case because its claim arose under state law and the parties were not diverse.
Triton Property Investments, LLC and the defendants, including Richard George. The case was returned to the California Superior Court for San Mateo County; Triton’s request for costs, attorney’s fees, and sanctions was denied.
What happened
Triton Property Investments, LLC asked the federal court to send its case against Richard George and other defendants back to California state court. The opinion does not identify the underlying state-law claim.
The court said it lacked federal-question jurisdiction because the claim arose under state law. Possible constitutional defenses by the defendants could not create federal jurisdiction, and diversity jurisdiction was unavailable because the parties were not diverse.
Judge Vince Chhabria granted Triton’s motion to remand and instructed the clerk to return the case to the California Superior Court for San Mateo County. He denied Triton’s request for costs, attorney’s fees, and sanctions, but warned that monetary sanctions might be considered if the defendants removed the case again and Triton had to file another remand motion.
The detailed version
- Triton Property Investments, LLC v. George · No. 3:21-cv-03024
- Vince Chhabria
- May 21, 2021
Background
Triton Property Investments, LLC moved to remand the case to state court. The opinion identifies the defendants as Richard George and others, and states that the claim against them arose under state law.
Jurisdiction
The court held that it lacked federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The defendants could not establish federal-question jurisdiction based on constitutional defenses they might raise. The court also held that diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) could not support removal because the parties were not diverse.
Ruling
Judge Vince Chhabria granted Triton’s motion to remand. The clerk was instructed to remand the case to the California Superior Court for San Mateo County. The court denied Triton’s request for costs, attorney’s fees, and sanctions. The court warned that if the defendants removed the case again and Triton had to file another motion to remand, it would seriously consider imposing monetary sanctions.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.