Notice of Motion to Remand and for Costs

On Grounds of Defective Removal and Lack of Federal Question

[28 U.S. §1447(c)]

To: Daniel Rapaport, Wendel, Rosen, Black & Dean, LLP, 1111 Broadway, 24^th Floor, Oakland, California 94607-4036, and Alan E. Walcher, Epstein, Becker & Green, P.C., 1875 Century Park East, Suite 500, Los Angeles, California 90067-2506.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on ___________, at ____ a.m./p.m., or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, plaintiffs will move the Court at __________, California, for an order remanding the above-entitled cause from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda, from which it was removed on or about October 16, 2000, pursuant to the defendants’ Notice of Removal.

Please take further notice that the plaintiffs will advance the following grounds in support of the motion.

1. This action was improperly removed, as five of the individually named defendants, Rob Robinson, Aaron Kriegel, Pete Bramson, Tomas Moran, and Leslie Cagan, all of whom are in receipt of the state court summons and complaint, by service or otherwise, and none of whom are nominal defendants, did not join in the removal, as required by 28 U.S.C. §1446.

2. The action was removed improperly and without jurisdiction, as the claims and rights of the plaintiffs in the action against defendants originate in the California Nonprofit Corporation Law (California Corporations Code §5000, et seq.), the California Uniform Supervision of Trustees for Charitable Purposes Act (California Government Code §12580, et seq.), and the California Unfair Competition Law (California Business & Professions Code §17200, et seq.). Plaintiffs’ claims and rights in the action do not arise under the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, to wit, as asserted by the removing parties, the Public Broadcasting Act, 47 U.S.C. §390, et seq., and other provisions of the Federal Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. §301, et seq., and no federal question is involved in the action. Accordingly, removal of the action without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties is not warranted under the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441.

3. This is not a proper case for resolution by the federal courts under Section 301, of the Federal Communications Act, or other related provisions, and removal would result in needless intervention by the federal courts and needless conflict with the State of California’s administration of its own pervasive regulatory scheme for enforcement of its Nonprofit Corporations Law, and Supervision of Trustees for Charitable Purposes Act, thereby affecting issues of substantial local importance that would transcend federal court jurisdiction in the case, even if such jurisdiction existed. This dispute concerns breaches of the charitable purposes stated in the Articles of Incorporation of a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, rights to elect corporate directors under the Bylaws of a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, and conformity of such Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws with the California Nonprofit Corporations Law, and is not resolvable by the Federal Communications Commission under the Federal Communications Act of 1934, as amended, in that plaintiffs have not asserted any claims or rights that arise from the issuance and vacation of licenses, technical matters such as radio frequency allocation, or interstate communication, or any other acts subject to such regulation.

4. This is not a proper case for resolution by the federal courts under Section 390 of the Public Broadcasting Act, or other related provisions, and removal would result in needless intervention by the federal courts and needless conflict with the State of California’s administration of its own pervasive regulatory scheme for enforcement of its Nonprofit Corporations Law, and Supervision of Trustees for Charitable Purposes Act, thereby affecting issues of substantial local importance that would transcend federal court jurisdiction in the case, even if such jurisdiction existed. This dispute concerns breaches of the charitable purposes stated in the Articles of Incorporation of a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, rights to elect corporate directors under the Bylaws of a California nonprofit public benefit corporation, and conformity of such Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws with the California Nonprofit Corporations Law, and is not resolvable by the Federal Communications Commission under the Public Broadcasting Act, in that plaintiffs have not asserted any claims or rights that arise from the provision of federal assistance, through matching grants, in the planning and construction of public telecommunications facilities.

Please take further notice that in support of this motion, plaintiffs will rely upon the Memorandum of Law, Declarations of Daniel Robert Bartley, Esq., and Carol Spooner, and upon all other papers heretofore filed and served with regard to this action.

Please take further notice that at the same time and place, plaintiffs will move that costs, including attorneys fees, be taxed in accordance with law.

Dated: ____________

____________________________________

DANIEL ROBERT BARTLEY
Attorney for Plaintiffs/ Relators
7 Guisela Court, P.O. Box 686
Novato, CA 94948-0686