Motion to Remand — Brandon Joe Williams v. Small Business Administration (Central District of California)

Summary

Plaintiff's Motion to Remand for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Document 12 in Brandon Joe Williams v. United States Small Business Administration, Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK, filed 11/27/24, in the U.S. District Court, Central District of California, before Judge R. Gary Klausner, running 7 pages. Williams, pro se, asks the court to send the case back to the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). He says his claims against the SBA over certain loan agreements, including breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion and unjust enrichment, rest only on state law. He argues that the SBA's removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) does not create a federal question, citing Gunn v. Minton and Grable. The hearing is noticed for December 23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 850.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Cite this document

“Motion to Remand — Brandon Joe Williams v. Small Business Administration (Central District of California).” Original at archive.org. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/12-408d8c335e/, SHA-256 f27586de268c3f75b764189c738aae244a811b99c30ae18853dc223b074f589c.

Full text

Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 12 Filed 11/27/24 Page 1 of 7 Page ID
#:122

BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®
P.O. Box 1962
Glendale, California 91209
747-273-0799
Brandon Joe Williams, Attorney-in-fact
Brandon@williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT of CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION (LOS ANGELES)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK

BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, Honorable Judge R. Gary Klausner
Plaintiff,
v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
UNITED STATES SMALL BUSINESS JURISDICTION
ADMINISTRATION,

[Proposed Order filed concurrently
Defendant. herewith]

Date: December 23, 2024
Time: 9:00 a.m.
Courtroom: 850

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO REMAND

TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December 23th, 2024, at 9:00am in Courtroom 850 of the

above-entitled Court, Plaintiff BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, by and through man Brandon Joe

Williams, will, and hereby does, move to remand this case to the Superior Court of the State of

California for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Federal
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 12 Filed 11/27/24 Page 2 of 7 Page ID
#:123

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). This was a hearing time that was already established and, rather than

set an entirely new hearing, we can simply cover this motion at the same time for the sake of

efficiency.

This motion is based on this Notice, the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities,

the pleadings and records on file in this case, and any other evidence or argument presented at or before

the hearing on this motion.

BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®

BY: /s/ Brandon Joe Williams
Brandon Joe Williams, agent, PRO SE
P.O. Box 1962
Glendale, California 91209
Brandon@williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com
(747) 273-0799
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®, by and through agent Brandon Joe Williams, moves

to remand this case to the Superior Court of California because this Honorable Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s claims are exclusively state-law based, without any federal questions

presented. As a result, this case does not satisfy the requirements for federal jurisdiction and must be

remanded to state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). (emphasis added)

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

Plaintiff initially filed this civil action in the Superior Court of the State of California, County

of Los Angeles, asserting state law claims against Defendant United States Small Business

Administration (“SBA”) regarding certain loan agreements, including causes of action for breach of
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 12 Filed 11/27/24 Page 3 of 7 Page ID
#:124

contract, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, and violations of California statutes,

specifically California Business and Professions Code § 17200, et seq., California Penal Code §§ 496,

236.1, 487, and California Corporations Code § 25541.

In Plaintiff's complaint, he claims that Defendant SBA’s actions in managing and processing his

loan agreements resulted in damages to him, and these alleged damages form the basis for his

exclusively state-based causes of action. Importantly, Plaintiff did not raise any claims under federal

law or invoke any federal causes of action, nor does he seek relief based on federal law.

On November 5, 2024, the SBA filed a Notice of Removal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1),

arguing that removal was appropriate based on the SBA’s status as a federal agency. However, as

demonstrated below, the mere presence of a federal agency does not independently satisfy the

requirements for federal jurisdiction where no federal question or substantial federal issue is present.

III. ARGUMENT

A. Federal Courts Are Courts of Limited Jurisdiction

Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and may hear cases only where a federal question exists

(28 U.S.C. § 1331) or where diversity jurisdiction is met (28 U.S.C. § 1332). When these bases for

jurisdiction are absent, cases are properly heard in state court. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)

(1) mandates dismissal of claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)

requires remand of improperly removed cases.

A.L.T. Corporation v. Small Business Administration, 801 F.2d 1451 (5th Cir. 1986) directly

supports this principle. In that case, the Fifth Circuit held that state court judgments based solely on

state law could not be automatically enforced in federal court even if they involved the SBA. The court

stressed that the presence of a federal agency does not create federal jurisdiction where the claims

remain fundamentally state law issues. This decision underscores that the SBA’s involvement in this
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 12 Filed 11/27/24 Page 4 of 7 Page ID
#:125

case does not automatically confer federal jurisdiction, especially where, as here, no federal issues are

raised.

B. No Federal Question Exists to Confer Jurisdiction

Plaintiff’s claims are based on alleged violations of California state law, and the causes of action

include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, contract fraud, conversion, unjust enrichment, and

violations of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, California Penal Code §§ 496, 236.1,

and 487, and California Corporations Code § 25541. These are purely state-based claims with no

requirement to interpret or apply federal law.

1. Supreme Court Precedent Against Federal Jurisdiction in State Claims

The U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal jurisdiction is not created simply by the presence

of a federal element within a state law claim. In Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013), the

Court ruled that the presence of a federal issue in a state law claim does not automatically

confer federal question jurisdiction. The federal issue must be “substantial” and capable of

resolution in federal court without disrupting the balance between federal and state judicial

responsibilities. Here, as in A.L.T. Corporation, the presence of the SBA does not create a

substantial federal issue, as Plaintiff’s claims do not hinge on federal law.

2. Grable Standard for Federal Jurisdiction

The Supreme Court’s test in Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering &

Manufacturing, 545 U.S. 308 (2005), sets a high bar for finding federal jurisdiction within

state law claims. The case requires that a federal issue must be necessarily raised, actually

disputed, substantial, and resolvable in federal court without disrupting the federal-state

balance. Plaintiff’s claims, including breach of contract and violations of California statutes, do
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 12 Filed 11/27/24 Page 5 of 7 Page ID
#:126

not meet these criteria, as they do not require federal interpretation and do not involve

substantial federal questions.

C. Ninth Circuit Authority Supporting Remand

1. Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2012)

In Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., the Ninth Circuit ruled that state law claims, even if they

implicate areas of federal interest, do not confer federal question jurisdiction unless they

involve substantial federal issues. In line with A.L.T. Corporation v. Small Business

Administration, this precedent supports remand, as Plaintiff’s claims do not involve substantial

federal issues.

2. California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Compensation Ins. Fund, 636 F.3d 538 (9th

Cir. 2011)

This case affirms that even state law claims involving interpretation of federal regulations do

not give rise to federal jurisdiction. Here, Plaintiff’s claims remain based solely on California

state law and do not implicate federal jurisdiction.

3. Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., 340 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 2003)

The Ninth Circuit in Lippitt reinforced that federal defenses, including sovereign immunity or

preemption, do not create federal question jurisdiction. Similarly, in A.L.T. Corporation, the

Fifth Circuit found that sovereign immunity or other federal defenses do not override the lack of

a federal question in state-law-based claims. Thus, the SBA’s potential defenses do not convert

Plaintiff’s state claims into a federal issue.

D. The Requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) Are Not Met

While 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1) allows removal by federal agencies, this does not circumvent the

requirement that a federal question be presented. In A.L.T. Corporation v. Small Business
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 12 Filed 11/27/24 Page 6 of 7 Page ID
#:127

Administration, 801 F.2d 1451 (5th Cir. 1986), the court determined that federal involvement alone

does not justify federal jurisdiction if the claims remain purely state-based. Defendant’s reliance on §

1442(a)(1) is therefore misplaced, as Plaintiff’s complaint does not raise federal issues.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court remand this action to

the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, as it lacks subject matter jurisdiction

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Dated: November 27th, 2024 RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

BRANDON JOE WILLIAMS®

BY: /s/ Brandon Joe Williams
Brandon Joe Williams, agent, PRO SE
P.O. Box 1962
Glendale, California 91209
Brandon@williamsandwilliamslawfirm.com
(747) 273-0799

LOCAL RULE 11-6.2 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

The undersigned Plaintiff, pro se, certifies that this Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand

contains 1499 words and is 7 pages in length which complies with the word limit set by Local Rule 11-

6.1 and the page limit is set by the Court’s Standing Order at Docket #6.

LOCAL RULE 7-3 MEET AND CONFER REQUIREMENT
Case 2:24-cv-09553-RGK-SK Document 12 Filed 11/27/24 Page 7 of 7 Page ID
#:128

Pursuant to Local Rule 7-3, on November 20, 2024, Plaintiff provided Defendant’s counsel with

the Notice of Motion and Motion to Remand and subsequently initiated a telephonic meet and confer to

discuss the basis for the motion. Despite these efforts, the parties were unable to reach a resolution

regarding the subject matter jurisdiction issues raised in the motion, necessitating this filing.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on November 27th, 2024, a copy of the foregoing was filed with the Clerk
of this Court by ECF.

Distribution:

Alexander L. Farrell
Assistant United States Attorney
300 North Los Angeles Street, Suite 7516
Los Angeles, CA 90012
(213) 894-5557
Alexander.Farrell@usdoj.gov

File and source

File: 12.pdf
Size: 152,314 bytes
SHA-256: f27586de268c3f75b764189c738aae244a811b99c30ae18853dc223b074f589c
Our copy: 12.pdf
Original: archive.org