Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc v. El Cerrito Automotive Investments, Inc. et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 3, 2006. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF)

Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc v. El Cerrito Automotive Investments, Inc. et al

Doc. 9

Case 3:05-cv-05366-MMC

Document 9

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

MITSUBISHI MOTORS CREDIT OF AMERICA, INC., Plaintiff v. EL CERRITO AUTOMOTIVE INVESTMENTS, INC., et al., Defendants /

No. C-05-5366 MMC ORDER REMANDING ACTION

Before the Court is plaintiff and counter-defendant Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc.'s ("MMCA") Notice of Removal, by which MMCA has removed the abovetitled action to federal court. The action consists of MMCA's complaint against defendants El Cerrito Automotive Investments, Inc., Bruce Kavich, and Zoran J. Zarich (collectively, "El Cerrito") and El Cerrito's cross-complaint against MMCA. MMCA's complaint alleges only state law claims against El Cerrito, and MMCA does not allege diversity of citizenship. Rather, MMCA alleges that because El Cerrito's crosscomplaint includes a claim arising under federal law, specifically, a claim under 18 U.S.C. § 1962, the federal district court has federal question jurisdiction over the action. Only claims set forth in the plaintiff's complaint can establish "arising under" jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case 3:05-cv-05366-MMC

Document 9

Filed 01/03/2006

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

826, 831 (2002). "[A] counterclaim ­ which appears as part of the defendant's answer, not as part of the plaintiff's complaint ­ cannot serve as the basis for `arising under' jurisdiction." Id. Here, MMCA's complaint does not include any claim that arises under federal law. Consequently, the Court lacks "arising under" jurisdiction. See id. Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS the above-titled action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Contra Costa. The Clerk shall close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2005

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2