Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Padres Hacia Una Vida Mejor v. County of Kern
No. CV-F-95-5123-OWW (E.D. Cal. June 30, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50743
Description
Low-Income Latino Residents’ Challenge to Proposed Expansion of Toxic-Waste Disposal Facility Remanded to State Court
Abstract
The district court has remanded to state court this action brought
by low-income Latino residents to challenge defendant
company’s plan to expand a hazardous-waste disposal facility
in their community. Plaintiffs claim that defendants—the
company and several county and state officials—have
discriminated against them in violation of Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, and
the equal protection guarantees of the state and federal
constitutions. Plaintiffs also claim that defendants have violated
state law regulating the siting of toxic-waste dumps, state
planning and zoning law, and the county’s zoning ordinance
and general plan. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief
in state court. Defendant company removed the case to federal
district court, and plaintiffs asked the federal court to remand
or, in the alternative, to abstain. The court found that
plaintiffs’ claim against the director of the state’s
Office of Permit Assistance (OPA) is not obviously frivolous under
settled rules of state law for whether OPA has no duty to intervene
in an approval process from which plaintiffs were allegedly
intentionally excluded cannot be determined from the face of the
statute. Finding that the Eleventh Amendment barred the court from
exercising jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims against
defendant director, the court held that removal under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b) was improper. The court also found that, removal
under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(c) was improper because
plaintiffs’ state law claims are not separate and independent
from plaintiffs’ federal civil rights claims.
Additional Information
Files
- Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief
- Notice of Removal of Action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
- Plaintiffs’ Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Motion to Abstain and Stay Further Proceedings
- Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand Removed Action
- Laidlaw Environmental Services (Lokern), Inc.’s and Laidlaw, Inc.'s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand
- Plaintiffs’ Reply Memorandum in Support of Motion to Remand
- Memorandum Opinion and Order re: Motions to Remand or to Abstain
