Mendez v. City of Boise et al, No. 1:2019cv00049 - Document 7 (D. Idaho 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER It is hereby ORDERED, that the motion to remand (docket no. 3 ) is GRANTED, and that the clerk is directed to remand this case to the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Small Claims Court. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Modified on 7/3/2019 (jp).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Mendez v. City of Boise et al Doc. 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO CITY OF BOISE CITY, a municipal corporation Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:19-CV-049-BLW MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER RAUL MENDEZ, Defendant. INTRODUCTION The Court has before it a motion to remand filed by the City of Boise defendants. The motion is fully briefed and at issue. For the reasons explained below, the Court will grant the motion. ANALYSIS The City of Boise filed a claim against plaintiff Mendez in the Ada County Small Claims Court for “[f]ailure to pay [your] mandatory sewer services provided by the City of Boise pursuant to Boise City Code § 8-11.” Mendez removed the case to this Court and the City responded by filing the motion to remand now before the Court. Because a defendant may remove a case under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) only if the claim could originally have been filed in federal court, whether removal jurisdiction exists must be determined by reference to the “well-pleaded complaint.” Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). Absent diversity – and there is no diversity here – federal question jurisdiction is required. Caterpillar Inc. v. Dockets.Justia.com Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Id. at 393. Here, the City’s claim for payment of a sewer fee pursuant to the City Code raises no federal question on its face. While Mendez alleges constitutional defenses to the City’s claim, such defenses cannot be the basis for a removal to federal court under Caterpillar. For these reasons, the Court will grant the motion to remand. ORDER In accordance with the Memorandum Decision above, NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the motion to remand (docket no. 3) is GRANTED, and that the clerk is directed to remand this case to the Fourth Judicial District, Ada County Small Claims Court. DATED: July 2, 2019 _________________________ B. Lynn Winmill U.S. District Court Judge
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
