Heidi Amaya v. Jason John Van Beek;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HEIDI AMAYA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JASON JOHN VAN BEEK; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55538
D.C. No. 8:09-cv-00749-CJC-SS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013**
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Heidi Amaya appeals pro se from the district court’s order remanding her
action to the California state courts after declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction over her second amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. We have
FILED
MAR 21 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

10-55538 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion a
district court’s decision to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Wash. State
Republican Party v. Wash. State Grange, 676 F.3d 784, 797 (9th Cir. 2012). We
have a special obligation to satisfy ourselves of the district court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 95 (1998). We
vacate and remand.
Remand of Amaya’s action to state court was required because Amaya’s
original complaint provided no basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction, making
removal improper. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Sparta Surgical Corp. v.
Nat’l Ass’n of Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1213 (9th Cir. 1998)
(“[J]urisdiction must be analyzed on the basis of the pleadings filed at the time of
removal without reference to subsequent amendments.”); Rains v. Criterion Sys.,
Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996) (“When a claim can be supported by
alternative and independent theories—one of which is a state law theory and one of
which is a federal law theory—federal question jurisdiction does not attach
because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.”). Accordingly, we
vacate and remand with instructions for the district court to vacate its prior orders,
and to remand the action to state court.

-- 2 of 3 --

10-55538 3
The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 3 of 3 --