Kemp v. City of Los Angeles

District Court, S.D. California · No. 1211-58 · 1959-01-12 · Published

James O. KEMP and John M. Jackson v. CITY OF LOS ANGELES, Standard Oil Company of California, Matson Navigation Company, Ben C. Gerwick, Inc., Does I Through X, Inclusive

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Byrne (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-14T00:55Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a petition to remove a state court negligence action involving damage to vessels in Los Angeles Harbor to federal court. The court ordered the case remanded to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, finding that removal was improper because the state court had jurisdiction under the 'saving to suitors' clause and the federal court lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of complete diversity and the failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement.

What the court decided	The model
Remand of the case to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District. “It Is Ordered upon the Court’s own initiative, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, that this case is remanded to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, and that the Clerk serve a certified copy of this Order upon the Clerk of that Court.”	agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that removal requires the state court to have had jurisdiction. Because the plaintiffs filed a common law negligence action in state court under the 'saving to suitors' clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the state court retained jurisdiction. Consequently, the federal court could not exercise exclusive admiralty jurisdiction. Furthermore, the action did not arise under federal law, and complete diversity was lacking because the City of Los Angeles is a citizen of the state where the action was brought. Additionally, the amount in controversy ($438.50) was below the $10,000 threshold required for federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the remand was legally required.

What the court decided

The model

Remand of the case to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District.

“It Is Ordered upon the Court’s own initiative, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, that this case is remanded to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, and that the Clerk serve a certified copy of this Order upon the Clerk of that Court.”

agree with court
The court correctly applied the principle that removal requires the state court to have had jurisdiction. Because the plaintiffs filed a common law negligence action in state court under the 'saving to suitors' clause of 28 U.S.C. § 1333, the state court retained jurisdiction. Consequently, the federal court could not exercise exclusive admiralty jurisdiction. Furthermore, the action did not arise under federal law, and complete diversity was lacking because the City of Los Angeles is a citizen of the state where the action was brought. Additionally, the amount in controversy ($438.50) was below the $10,000 threshold required for federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, the remand was legally required.

The order itself: sound — The order is sound. It correctly identifies the jurisdictional hurdles for removal: the state court must have had jurisdiction, and the federal court must have original jurisdiction. It correctly applies the 'saving to suitors' clause to determine that the state court had jurisdiction over the in personam maritime tort claim. It then correctly analyzes the lack of federal jurisdiction by noting the absence of complete diversity (due to the City of Los Angeles) and the failure to meet the amount in controversy requirement for federal question jurisdiction. The reliance on *Madruga* and *Freeman* is appropriate for the era and the legal issues presented.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion — Byrne

BYRNE, District Judge.

Kemp and Jackson filed an action in the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District alleging that negligence of the defendants was the proximate cause of damage to their sloop and schooner in the sum of $438.50, and praying for judgment in that amount.

The defendant City of Los Angeles filed a petition for the removal of the case to the United States District Court “pursuant to § 1441(b) of Title 28 of the *68United States Code”. § 1441(b) reads as follows:

“(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”

If this is an action arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States, it may not be removed as the jurisdictional requirement of $10,-000.00, exclusive of interest and costs, is not present (see 28 U.S.C. § 1331). If it is not such an action, it may not be removed since at least one of the defendants (City of Los Angeles) is a citizen of the state in which the action is brought. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), supra. If the action is one in admiralty under 28 U.S.C. § 1333 it is not a case which “[arises] under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States” within the meaning of § 1441(b). Paduano v. Yamashita, 2 Cir., 221 F.2d 615.

The City’s petition includes an allegation that the action is one of which the United States District Courts have original jurisdiction in admiralty in that the plaintiffs seek to recover a money judgment for damages occurring to their vessels while the vessels were in navigable waters in Los Angeles Harbor. Section 1333 of Title 28 of the United States Code provides in part:

“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of:

(1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.”

It should be observed that it iá basic for removal that there be jurisdiction of the state court from which removal is sought as well as original jurisdiction in the district courts of the United States had the action initially been brought there. Freeman v. Bee Machine Co., 319 U.S. 448, 63 S.Ct. 1146, 87 L.Ed. 1509. If this were an admiralty action within the meaning of § 1333, the United States District Court’s jurisdiction would have been exclusive and the state court would not have had jurisdiction which was necessary for removal.

Under the “saving to suitors” clause of § 1333, suits in personam based on maritime torts may be brought in state courts in the same manner as any common law negligence case. Madruga v. Superior Court, 346 U.S. 556, 74 S.Ct. 298, 98 L.Ed. 290. The plaintiff here exercised his option under the “savings to suitors” clause and filed a common law negligence action in the state court which cannot be removed to the law side of the United States District Court as the jurisdictional amount of $10,000 exclusive of interest and costs is not present. Nor may it be removed to this Court sitting as a Court of Admiralty as to permit such a removal would nullify the “saving to suitors” clause of § 1333 and deny the plaintiff the exercise of his option of remedies. See Hill v. United Fruit Company, D.C., 149 F.Supp. 470, and cases there cited.

It appearing to the Court that the case was improvidently removed from the State Court, It Is Ordered upon the Court’s own initiative, 28 U.S.C. § 1447, that this case is remanded to the Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial District, and that the Clerk serve a certified copy of this Order upon the Clerk of that Court.

It Is Further Ordered that the Clerk serve copies of this Order by United States mail upon the attorneys for the parties appearing in the case.

Cites, in this corpus

Hill v. United Fruit Company 86-57 · 1957-03-14