Hohu v. Hatch

Filing 28

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 13 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Denying Motion for Sanctions. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/16/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

LINDA HOHU,

9

Plaintiff,
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AND DENYING
MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

No. C-12-4906 EMC

WENDY HATCH,

12

Defendant.
___________________________________/

(Docket No. 13)
13
14
15

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Linda Hohu (“Hohu”) filed an action in this Court seeking declaratory relief that

16

two claims asserted in a pending California state court action by Defendant Wendy Hatch (“Hatch”),

17

the Administrator of the Estate of John K. Hohu, are preempted by the Employee Retirement Income

18

Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et. seq. See Complaint (“Compl.”) (Docket No.

19

1). Defendant Hatch thereafter filed a motion to dismiss the action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1),

20

arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint. See Def.’s Mot.

21

to Dismiss (Docket No. 13). Defendant requests that this Court “dismiss this action pursuant to

22

FRCP 12(b)(1) on the grounds that the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction (federal

23

question) over the Plaintiff’s ‘Complaint for Declaratory Relief (Federal Preemption),’ as previously

24

determined by U.S. District Court Judge Josephine Staton Tucker on September 12, 2012 in the

25

United States District Court Central District Southern Division Case No: SACV 12-1067-JST.”

26

Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 2. Defendant has concurrently moved for Rule 11 sanctions in the sum of

27

$3,646.00 against Plaintiff Hohu arguing that Plaintiff’s complaint lacks a factual foundation for

28

establishing subject matter jurisdiction in federal court, a fact allegedly known by Plaintiff and her

1

attorney as a result of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California having previously

2

remanded these same claims to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Having considered

3

the parties’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court

4

hereby GRANTS Defendant Hatch’s motion for the reasons set forth below.

5
6

II.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

John K. Hohu, the deceased ex-husband of Plaintiff Linda Hohu, was an employee of Cisco

Restricted Stock Units (“RSU”) plan, both of which are “employee benefit plans” governed by

9

ERISA. Compl. ¶ 2; see 29 U.S.C. § 1002(3) (defining “employee benefit plan”). Plaintiff Linda

10

Hohu was designated as John Hohu’s beneficiary under each plan. Compl. ¶ 2. On July 9, 2008,

11
For the Northern District of California

Systems, Inc., and participated in his employer’s life insurance plan and stock incentive or

8

United States District Court

7

some time after John Hohu had made his beneficiary designations, he and the Plaintiff became

12

parties to marital dissolution proceedings in the Superior Court of California, County of Alameda.

13

Id. ¶ 12. California Family Code § 2040 subjects all parties to marital dissolution proceedings to

14

certain automatic temporary restraining orders (“TRO”), including an order:

15
16
17

Restraining both parties from cashing, borrowing against, canceling,
transferring, disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries of any insurance or
other coverage, including life, health, automobile, and disability, held for the
benefit of the parties and their child or children for whom support may be
ordered.

18

Cal. Fam. Code § 2040(a)(3). During the course of the Hohus’ marital dissolution proceedings, the

19

Alameda County Superior Court entered an order bifurcating the issue of marital status from all

20

other issues, and provided that “[u]ntil a judgment has been entered and filed on all remaining

21

issues, neither party may change the beneficiary of any insurance or other coverage, including life,

22

health, automobile and disability, held for the benefit of the parties and their minor children.” See

23

Compl., Ex. A (Stipulation and Order RE: Bifurcation of Status of Marriage, In Re Marriage of

24

Hohu and Hohu, Case No. VF-08-397217) § 4.

25

John Hohu died on June 21, 2011, after the court had taken the case under submission, but

26

before it had entered its decision and judgment. Compl. ¶ 15-16. Following John Hohu’s death,

27

Plaintiff made claims for benefits under both the life insurance and RSU plans. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20.

28

The administrator for each plan determined that Plaintiff was entitled to benefits pursuant to the

2

payable under the plans. Id. Defendant Hatch made competing claims to benefits under each plan,

3

but the administrator for each plan found that she was “not entitled to any of the plan benefits

4

ultimately paid to Plaintiff Hohu.” Id. ¶¶ 19, 21. Defendant did not appeal the decision of the plan

5

administrators, but instead, after the benefits were disbursed to Plaintiff, brought an action under

6

California Probate Code § 850 in the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, to recover the

7

benefits that had been distributed to Plaintiff. Compl. ¶ 22. See also Petition, Wendy Hatch,

8

Administrator of the Estate of John K. Hohu aka John Hohu v. Linda Hohu and Does 1-5 inclusive,

9

Case No. 30-2011-00521387-PR-PL-LJC (Docket No 14, Ex. 1).1 Defendant’s probate action, filed

10

on June 5, 2012, seeks to recover from Plaintiff the benefits distributed under the life insurance and

11
For the Northern District of California

terms of the respective plans, and disbursed to Plaintiff the full amount of all benefits due and

2

United States District Court

1

RSU plans (valued at approximately $1.5 million) on the grounds that these assets were obtained by

12

Plaintiff in violation of an automatic TRO imposed by California Family Code § 2040 and the

13

judgment entered by the Alameda County Superior Court in In Re Marriage of Hohu and Hohu,

14

Case No. VF-08-397217 (“Probate Action”). See Compl. ¶¶ 22-23. Defendant’s probate action

15

asks the Orange County Superior Court to impose a constructive trust on the plan benefits

16

distributed to Plaintiff in order to effectuate their eventual transfer back to the Estate of John Hatch.

17

See id. ¶ 23.

18

Plaintiff removed Defendant’s probate action to the United States District Court for the

19

Central District of California on June 29, 2012, asserting that federal question jurisdiction existed

20

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Defendant’s probate action was preempted by § 514(a) of ERISA.

21

See Notice of Removal, Wendy Hatch, Administrator of the Estate of John K. Hohu aka John Hohu

22

v. Linda Hohu and Does 1-5 inclusive, Case No. 12-CV-1067 JST-FMO (Docket No. 14, Ex. 2).

23

Defendant thereafter filed a Motion for Remand, arguing that the district court lacked subject matter

24
25
26
27
28

1

Defendant requests that this Court take judicial notice of the proceedings in Defendant’s
state court probate action. See Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 14). Under Federal Rule of
Evidence 201(b), a court may take judicial notice of an adjudicative fact not subject to reasonable
dispute because it “(1) is generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can
be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be
questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). The second prong of Rule 201(b) encompasses taking judicial
notice of “court filings and other matters of public record.” Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA,
Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006).

3

1

jurisdiction because the state probate action was not completely preempted by ERISA. Motion for

2

Remand (Docket No. 14, Ex. 3). After a hearing on Defendant’s motion, District Judge Josephine

3

Tucker remanded the matter back to the Orange County Superior Court for want of subject matter

4

jurisdiction. See Order Granting Petitioner’s Motion for Remand (“Remand Order”) (Docket 14, Ex.

5

6). Judge Tucker concluded that “Petitioner’s state probate action to recover assets allegedly

6

misappropriated in violation of state court orders is not completely preempted by ERISA,” and held,

7

“[a]ccordingly, the state court claim has not been converted into a federal claim and the Court lacks

8

subject matter jurisdiction over this case.” Id. at 6.

9

Following Judge Tucker’s order of remand, Plaintiff filed the instant action in this Court.
Her complaint asks for a declaratory judgment that Defendant’s state law probate claims to benefits

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

distributed from the life insurance plan (Count One) and the RSU plan (Count Two) are preempted

12

by 29 U.S.C. § 1144(a), ERISA’s express preemption provision. Compl. ¶¶ 24-33. As with

13

Plaintiff’s earlier Notice of Removal, Plaintiff’s instant complaint before this Court alleges that

14

“[t]his Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Compl.

15

¶ 3. Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under

16

Rule 12(b)(1) on the grounds that, following Judge Tucker’s ruling, Defendant’s state probate action

17

is not completely preempted by ERISA, leaving this Court without federal question jurisdiction

18

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 5. Defendant also seeks sanctions under

19

Rule 11 against Plaintiff and her lawyer in the amount of $3,646.00, a sum representing Defendant’s

20

costs and fees for bringing this motion, on the grounds that Plaintiff’s filing of this action was not

21

“well grounded in fact” or “warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension,

22

modification, or reversal of existing law.” Id. at 14.

23
24
25

III.
A.

DISCUSSION

Collateral Estoppel
Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s declaratory action before this Court ought to be dismissed

26

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Def.’s Mot. to

27

Dismiss at 2; Defendant’s Supplemental Brief (“Def.’s Supp. Br.”) (Docket No. 24) at 4. “Collateral

28

estoppel, or issue preclusion, bars the relitigation of issues actually adjudicated in previous litigation

4

1

between the same parties. “ Steen v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 106 F.3d 904, 910 (9th Cir.

2

1997) (quoting Kamilche Co. v. United States, 53 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 1995)). “[T]he doctrine

3

of collateral estoppel can apply to preclude relitigation of both issues of law and issues of fact if

4

those issues were conclusively determined in a prior action.” Steen, 106 F.3d at 910 (quoting United

5

States v. Stauffer Chem. Co., 464 U.S. 165, 170-71 (1984)). “It is the general rule that issue

6

preclusion attaches only ‘[w]hen an issue of fact or law is actually litigated and determined by a

7

valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment.’” Arizona v.

8

California, 530 U.S. 392, 414 (2000) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 27, at 250

9

(1982)). “Collateral estoppel, like the related doctrine of res judicata, has the dual purpose of
protecting litigants from the burden of relitigating an identical issue with the same party or his privy

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

and of promoting judicial economy by preventing needless litigation.” Parklane Hosiery Co., Inc. v.

12

Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 (1979) (citing Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois

13

Foundation, 402 U.S. 313, 328–329 (1971)). “The party asserting collateral estoppel must . . . show

14

that the estopped issue is identical to an issue litigated in a previous action.” Kamilche Co. v. United

15

States, 53 F.3d 1059, 1062 (9th Cir. 1995).

16

1.

17

The Supreme Court has held that “a judgment is entitled to full faith and credit – even as to

18

questions of jurisdiction – when [a] second court’s inquiry discloses that those questions have been

19

fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the original judgment.”

20

Underwriters Nat. Assur. Co. v. N. Carolina Life & Acc. & Health Ins. Guar. Ass’n, 455 U.S. 691,

21

706 (1982) (quoting Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106, 111 (1963)).

22
23
24

Prior Litigation of Subject Matter Jurisdiction

After a party has his day in court, with opportunity to present his
evidence and his view of the law, a collateral attack upon the decision
as to jurisdiction there rendered merely retries the issue previously
determined. There is no reason to expect that the second decision will
be more satisfactory than the first.

25

Stoll v. Gottlieb, 305 U.S. 165, 172 (1938). See also Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. at 116 (where

26

“jurisdictional issues ha[ve] been fully and fairly litigated by the parties and finally determined . . . ,

27

the [second] court . . . was correct in ruling that further inquiry was precluded.”).

28

5

1

Several circuits have held that prior determinations of a lack of jurisdiction bar relitigation of

2

that same issue in subsequent proceedings. See Boone v. Kurtz, 617 F.2d 435, 436 (5th Cir. 1980)

3

(“Although the dismissal of a complaint for lack of jurisdiction does not adjudicate the merit so as to

4

make the case res judicata on the substance of the asserted claim, it does adjudicate the court’s

5

jurisdiction, and a second complaint cannot command a second consideration of the same

6

jurisdictional claims.”) (citations omitted); N. Georgia Elec. Membership Corp. v. City of Calhoun,

7

Ga., 989 F.2d 429, 433 (11th Cir. 1993) (collateral estoppel precluded relitigating jurisdictional

8

question after first suit was dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction, even though dismissal did not

9

adjudicate the merits of the case); Cutler v. Hayes, 818 F.2d 879, 888 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“A valid
jurisdictional judgment has preclusive effect, we note, even if erroneous”); Muniz Cortes v.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Intermedics, Inc., 229 F.3d 12, 14 (1st Cir. 2000) (“Dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

12

precludes relitigation of the issues determined in ruling on the jurisdictional question.”). See also

13

Still v. Michaels, 791 F. Supp. 248, 251 (D. Ariz. 1992) (relitigation of subject matter jurisdiction in

14

“[t]he present suit is further barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel or issue preclusion.”).

15

In Gupta v. Thai Airways Int’l, Ltd., 487 F.3d 759 (9th Cir. 2007), the Ninth Circuit

16

considered a California state court’s decision to dismiss a plaintiff’s negligence action against Thai

17

Airways on the grounds that the defendant had sovereign immunity from suit under the Foreign

18

Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602, et. seq. Plaintiff had not appealed the state court’s

19

decision. Id., 487 F.3d at 762. Instead, he filed a complaint in federal court alleging the same

20

causes of action presented in the state court complaint. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for lack

21

of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), arguing that the issue of jurisdiction

22

“was res judicata by virtue of the state court’s prior determination of these issues.” Gupta, 487 F.3d

23

at 762. The Ninth Circuit held that under California law, “an order denying a motion or dismissing a

24

proceeding for procedural reasons such as lack of jurisdiction is not res judicata as to the merits of

25

any underlying substantive question,” but “such dismissal does bar re-litigation of issues necessary

26

for the determination of jurisdiction.” Id. at 766 (citations and quotation marks omitted) (emphasis

27

in original). Since the state court’s “decision on the jurisdictional question [was] based upon a

28

determination of the merits of an issue before the court,” the Ninth Circuit held that “it constitutes a

6

1

binding determination of that issue” and “therefore [had] a preclusive effect.” Id. at 766-67 (“Gupta

2

had a full and fair opportunity to establish the jurisdiction of United States courts over Thai

3

Airways. He failed to do so. He does not now get a do-over.”).

4

The record in this matter clearly indicates that the question of federal subject matter

5

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 over the claims advanced in Plaintiff’s instant declaratory

6

judgement action was “fully and fairly litigated and finally decided in the court which rendered the

7

original judgment.” Underwriters Nat. Assur. Co. v. N. Carolina Life & Acc. & Health Ins. Guar.

8

Ass’n, 455 U.S. at 706. Plaintiff’s Notice of Removal indicates that removal of Defendant’s earlier

9

state probate action was sought based on ERISA’s express preemption provision, 29 U.S.C. § 1144.
Not. of Removal (Docket No. 14, Ex. 2) ¶¶ 11-15. Plaintiff argued there (as she does here) that §

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

1144 vested the district court with original jurisdiction by operation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which

12

states that “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

13

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Judge Tucker’s decision granting Defendant’s

14

motion to remand fully considered, but ultimately rejected, Plaintiff’s argument that federal question

15

jurisdiction existed based on ERISA’s preemption provision. Citing the Supreme Court’s opinion in

16

Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 213 (2004), the court found that “[i]n the Ninth Circuit, a

17

state law claim is completely preempted by ERISA, and therefore removable to federal court, only if

18

it meets the two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Davila.” Remand Order at 4.

19

Focusing on the second prong of the Davila test, Judge Tucker found:

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

[A] state claim is completely preempted by ERISA only where there is
no other independent legal duty that is implicated by a defendant’s
actions. In the instant case, [Defendant]’s claim arises out of
independent legal duties completely unrelated to ERISA. These
independent duties were imposed upon [Plaintiff] based on the ATRO
[automatic temporary restraining order] issued in the family court
proceeding . . . [Defendant] is correct that the Family Law orders stand
on their own and are enforceable whether or not an ERISA plan is
involved. ERISA does not completely preempt the state court action
simply because these independent legal duties arising out of the
subject orders and judgment may ultimately have an effect on
ownership rights to sums already distributed by an employee benefit
plan . . . The Court concludes that [Defendant]’s state probate action to
recover assets allegedly misappropriated in violation of state court
orders is not completely preempted by ERISA. Accordingly, the state
court claim has not been converted into a federal claim and the Court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

7

1
2

Removal Order at 5-6 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff’s instant complaint for declaratory relief seeks to relitigate precisely the same

3

question of federal subject matter jurisdiction resolved by Judge Tucker in Wendy Hatch,

4

Administrator of the Estate of John K. Hohu aka John Hohu v. Linda Hohu and Does 1-5 inclusive,

5

Case No. 12-CV-1067 JST-FMO. Plaintiff’s complaint states that this Court has jurisdiction over

6

this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “as this case raises questions arising under the Supremacy Clause

7

of the United States Constitution and ERISA.” Compl. ¶ 3. Both causes of action advanced by

8

Plaintiff are premised on 29 U.S.C. § 1144, ERISA’s express preemption provision, and state that

9

“[a] declaratory judgment is necessary to avoid prosecution of a preempted claim,” that is,
Defendant’s state probate action. See Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28, 31, 33. Since the issue of federal subject

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ERISA preemption claim has already been “actually litigated and

12

determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination [was] essential to the judgment,”

13

Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. at 414, this Court finds that Plaintiff’s complaint should be

14

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

15

2.

16

Plaintiff advances two arguments as to why collateral estoppel ought not apply to the

17

complaint pending before this Court, but neither argument is persuasive. First, Plaintiff attempts to

18

draw a distinction between a federal district court’s removal jurisdiction and its original jurisdiction

19

in support of her argument that the issue of jurisdiction has not been “actually litigated.” This,

20

however, is a distinction without a difference. Federal removal jurisdiction is governed by 28

21

U.S.C. § 1441, which states that “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any

22

civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

23

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United

24

States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. §

25

1441(a) (emphasis added). Federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is also established

26

through “original jurisdiction.” See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original

27

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”)

28

(emphasis added). The presence of “original jurisdiction,” therefore, establishes a federal court’s

Original vs. Removal Jurisdiction

8

1

ability to hear actions both originally filed with the court under § 1331, as well as those removed to

2

federal court via § 1441. See City of Chicago v. Int’l Coll. of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997)

3

(“The propriety of removal thus depends on whether the case originally could have been filed in

4

federal court.”) (citation omitted); People of State of Cal. v. Beltz Travel Serv., Inc., 379 F. Supp.

5

948, 950 (N.D. Cal. 1974) (“Removal jurisdiction is not intended as a device for easing into federal

6

court claims which could not have been brought there initially. The Court’s removal jurisdiction

7

under section 1441 is ‘keyed’ to its original jurisdiction under section 1331.”) (citation omitted). As

8

such, the distinction between removal and original jurisdiction has no impact on the application of

9

collateral estoppel in this matter.
3.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Second, Plaintiff argues that “[c]ollateral estoppel is never applicable to a district court’s

Unappealable Orders

12

remand order because such orders are not appealable.” Plaintiff’s Supplemental Brief (“Pl.’s Supp.

13

Br.”) (Docket No. 22) at 1. Authorities are split on whether the doctrine of collateral estoppel

14

applies to a district court’s finding that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case when it

15

subsequently remands back to state court a matter that had been previously removed.2 The crux of

16

the disagreement on this question centers on the fact that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State

17

court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

18

On one hand, a number of authorities have held that “[a]s between two federal district courts,

19

the inability to appeal from the order of remand does not permit the issue actually determined in one

20

federal court to be relitigated in the second action.” Moore’s Federal Practice, 3rd. Ed. (2012), §

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

See generally Andrews v. Modell:
There is a considerable amount of disagreement as to whether remand
orders – or, even more generally, any orders that are unappealable –
may trigger collateral estoppel in subsequent proceedings . . . Indeed,
the precedent, as well as the commentary, on this issue seems like the
proverbial Gordian Knot, with different approaches being taken
among, as well as within, the Courts of Appeals, and with some of the
approaches appearing, at least at first blush, to conflict with Supreme
Court pronouncements. Not wishing to draw comparisons with
Alexander the Great or Henry V . . . the Court shall bypass this
issue . . .

636 F. Supp. 2d 213, 218-19 (S.D.N.Y. 2008).

9

1

132.03(4)(k)(iv). See, e.g., Johnson Steel St.-Rail Co v. William Wharton, Jr, & Co, 152 U.S. 252,

2

261 (1894) (“ The existence or nonexistence of a right, in either party, to have the judgment in the

3

prior suit re-examined, upon appeal or writ of error, cannot, in any case, control this inquiry.”);3

4

Napper v. Anderson, Henley, Shields, Bradford & Pritchard, 500 F.2d 634, 636-37 (5th Cir. 1974)

5

(“Estoppel by judgment will not permit matters actually litigated and determined between the same

6

parties in one proceeding to be relitigated . . . [a]s between the two federal district courts, the

7

inability to appeal from the order of remand does not permit the issue actually litigated and

8

determined in the federal court in [the first action] to be relitigated in the second action.”). See also

9

Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 4436.4

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

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

3

This nineteenth century holding from Johnson Steel was embraced with some caution by
the Supreme Court in the 1980 case of Standefer v. U. S., 447 U.S. 10, 23 n.18 (1980) (“This is not
to suggest that the availability of appellate review is always an essential predicate of estoppel. See
Johnson Co. v. Wharton, 152 U.S. 252, 14 S.Ct. 608, 38 L.Ed. 429 (1894); see generally 1B J.
Moore & T. Currier, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 0.416[5] (2d ed. 1974). The estoppel doctrine,
however, is premised upon an underlying confidence that the result achieved in the initial litigation
was substantially correct. In the absence of appellate review, or of similar procedures, such
confidence is often unwarranted.”).
4

Wright and Miller present an extended discussion of the split amongst authorities
on this question. In part, they explain:
Although a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction does not bar a second
action as a matter of claim preclusion, it does preclude relitigation of
the issues determined in ruling on the jurisdiction question . . .
Preclusion may be defeated, however, when the removal statutes
prohibit appellate review of a district court decision that remands to
state court for want of subject-matter jurisdiction. Courts have
disagreed on this question. The policy that denies review, however,
suggests strongly that inconsistent attempts to invoke federal
jurisdiction be rejected. Review is denied because it is more important
to achieve final resolution of the dispute without delay for protracted
wrangling over jurisdiction. Preclusion on the jurisdiction question
should apply both on a subsequent attempt to remove and to an
independent federal filing. But nonmutual preclusion properly may be
denied because the need to minimize the disruption caused by removal
does not extend to one who was not a party to the removed action.
Ordinarily, issue preclusion on the subject-matter jurisdiction question
takes the form of a direct estoppel against a second effort to assert the
same basis of jurisdiction for the same claim.
...
An exception may be required, moreover, denying preclusion when a
district court remands a removed action to state court on finding there
is no federal question to support subject-matter jurisdiction. The
removal statute, 28 U.S.C.A. § 1447(d), prohibits review of the

10

1

On the other hand, authorities have held that “[a]lthough an issue is actually litigated and

2

determined by a valid and final judgment, and the determination is essential to the judgment,

3

relitigation of the issue in a subsequent action between the parties is not precluded” when “[t]he

4

party against whom preclusion is sought could not, as a matter of law, have obtained review of the

5

judgment in the initial action.” Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 28(1) (1980). See, e.g.,

6

Health Cost Controls of Illinois, Inc. v. Washington 187 F.3d 703, 708-09 (7th Cir.1999) (holding

7

that “[a]n unappealable ruling, however, is not res judicata,” and since a “district court’s remand

8

order was unappealable because the ground was lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,” the remand

9

order did not “conclude the issue whether the district court has jurisdiction over Health Cost’s new
and materially identical suit.”); Covanta Onondaga Ltd. v. Onondaga County Res. Recovery Agency,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

318 F.3d 392, 397 (2d Cir. 2003) (since a “remand order is not appealable . . . then it is highly

12

unlikely that the order has preclusive effect.”); Nutter v. Monongahela Power Co., 4 F.3d 319, 322

13

(4th Cir. 1993) (“While the availability of appellate review is not always an essential predicate of

14

estoppel, we do not believe the district court’s jurisdictional findings incident to remand should

15

preclude relitigation of the same issues in state court. Accordingly, we hold that the district court’s

16

jurisdictional findings regarding complete preemption have no preclusive effect.”) (internal citations

17

and quotation marks omitted).

18

The Ninth Circuit has not yet opined directly on the question of whether the unappealable

19

nature of a remand order deprives it of any preclusive effect in subsequent proceedings. However, at

20

least two reported cases have determined, in dicta, that collateral estoppel does not apply to

21

unappealable rulings. In Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pac. Lumber Co., the Ninth Circuit held that

22

defendant Pacific Lumber did not have prudential standing to challenge certain extraneous

23

statements in a district court order, in part, because the extraneous statements “will not have

24

collateral estoppel effects under our case law.” 257 F.3d 1071, 1076 (9th Cir. 2001). Considering

25

27

remand order “by appeal or otherwise.” In this setting the best
resolution may be to preclude relitigation of the removal issue but to
leave the merits of the federal question open for independent decision
in the state courts.

28

Wright, Miller & Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure: Jurisdiction 2d § 4436 (emphasis added).

26

11

extraneous statements in the order, the court observed that “argument from collateral estoppel

3

consequences has elements of circularity. As collateral estoppel does not apply to an unappealable

4

determination, simply holding a ruling unappealable eliminates any prospect of preclusion.” Id. at

5

1076 (quoting Sea-Land Serv., Inc. v. Dep’t of Transp., 137 F.3d 640, 648 (D.C. Cir. 1998))

6

(emphasis added). However, the court ultimately held that the extraneous statements “have no

7

collateral estoppel effect,” not because they were unappealable, but “because they are immaterial to

8

the judgment, [and] also because they were entered without jurisdiction.” Id. at 1076. Similarly, in

9

Dixon v. Wallowa County, the Ninth Circuit raised the issue during consideration of a cross-appeal

10

of the denial of a county sheriff’s motion for summary judgment in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case. 336

11
For the Northern District of California

whether Pacific Lumber would be subjected to “adverse collateral rulings” as a consequence of the

2

United States District Court

1

F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2003). In assessing the sheriff’s argument that the “district court erred in

12

concluding that he participated in a constitutional violation by his decision to seize [appellant’s]

13

residence,” the court held that the sheriff “lacks standing to make this cross-appeal, since he was not

14

aggrieved in the district court,” because the “district court’s determination that [the sheriff]

15

participated in the constitutional violation was immaterial to the final judgment.” Id., 366 F.3d at

16

1020. Again, in dicta, the court observed that “[t]hough there is [a standing] exception if the adverse

17

ruling could serve as the basis for collateral estoppel in subsequent litigation, this exception does not

18

save [the sheriff’s] cross-appeal because the issue of his participation in the constitutional violation

19

has no issue preclusive effect. Issue preclusion does not apply to an issue that is not appealable.”

20

Id. at 1020 (internal citation omitted) (citing Restatement (Second) Of Judgments § 28(1) (1982) and

21

Envtl. Prot. Info. Ctr., Inc. v. Pac. Lumber Co., 257 F.3d at 1076).

22

While the Ninth Circuit has thus suggested in dicta, that appealability is the sine qua non of

23

preclusion, it has not squarely held so. Until it does, the weight of authority clearly rests with the

24

view that unreviewable remand orders have preclusive force in subsequent litigation between the

25

same parties. See Moore’s Federal Practice, 3rd. Ed. (2012), § 132.03(4)(k)(iv) (“When a case is

26

removed from state to federal court, and then remanded back to the state court for want of subject

27

matter jurisdiction, the decision to remand is not subject to appeal. In this situation, it might be

28

argued that the determination of the jurisdictional issue should not be given issue preclusive effect in

12

1

a subsequent attempt to invoke federal jurisdiction on the ground that the determination of the issue

2

was not subject to appeal. Authority is to the contrary, however.”). To hold otherwise would

3

facilitate forum shopping and extensive re-litigation over the threshold question of subject matter

4

jurisdiction.

5

4.

6

Rather than applying a categorical rule against collateral estoppel in this context, the Court

Confidence in Earlier Decision

7

looks to a more fundamental principle which drives issue preclusion. The Supreme Court sounded a

8

cautionary note in Standefer v. U. S. when it embraced the nearly 100 year old holding from Johnson

9

Steel St.-Rail Co v. William Wharton, Jr, & Co that “[t]he existence or nonexistence of a right, in
either party, to have the judgment in the prior suit re-examined, upon appeal or writ of error, cannot,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

in any case, control” whether preclusive effect can be given to a prior judgment. Johnson Steel St.-

12

Rail Co, 152 U.S. at 261. Standefer, citing Johnson Steel St.-Rail Co, acknowledged that while “the

13

availability of appellate review is always an essential predicate of estoppel,” the estoppel doctrine

14

“is premised upon an underlying confidence that the result achieved in the initial litigation was

15

substantially correct” and “in the absence of appellate review, or of similar procedures, such

16

confidence is often unwarranted.” Standefer, 447 U.S. at 23 n.18.

17

The key question here is whether, despite the absence of appellate review, confidence in

18

Judge Tucker’s decision on jurisdiction is warranted. In this case, confidence is warranted because

19

the Court is convinced that Judge Tucker’s analysis of subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

20

claims was and is correct.

21

The Supreme Court’s decision in Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila makes clear that in order to

22

maintain federal question jurisdiction based on a theory of complete preemption of state law claims

23

under ERISA, a plaintiff must show both that “(1) an individual, at some point in time, could have

24

brought [his or her] claim under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B),” and (2) that “there is no other independent

25

legal duty . . . implicated by a defendant’s actions.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire

26

Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 946 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. at

27

210). “[A] state-law cause of action is preempted by § 502(a)(1)(B) only if both prongs of the test

28

13

1

are satisfied.” Fossen v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Montana, Inc., 660 F.3d 1102, 1108 (9th Cir.

2

2011) (citations omitted).5

3

The Court also notes that federal jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s claims may not be found under

4

the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2801. While that Act “expanded the scope of the federal

5

courts’ remedial powers, it did nothing to alter the courts’ jurisdiction, or the ‘right of entrance to

6

federal courts.’” Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., v. Mortgage Guar. Ins. Corp., 642 F.3d 849, 853

7

(9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Skelly Oil Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 339 U.S. 667, 671 (1950)).

8

As Judge Tucker found, in the instant case it is clear that Defendant’s claim to the proceeds

ERISA.” Remand Order at 6. Plaintiff Hohu acknowledges as much in her complaint filed with this

11
For the Northern District of California

of John Hohu’s ERISA plan benefits “arises out of independent legal duties completely unrelated to

10

United States District Court

9

Court where she states, “notwithstanding John K. Hohu’s designation of Plaintiff Hohu as the death

12

beneficiary pursuant to the terms of the plans and the plan administrators’ determinations of Plaintiff

13

Hohu’s entitlement to the benefits,” Defendant Hatch alleges that “Plaintiff Hohu’s receipt and

14

retention of the plan benefits under the Cisco Life Insurance Plan and Cisco RSU Plan were

15

wrongful because of the terms of the ATROs, the Bifurcation Order, and/or the Statement of

16

Decision and Judgment.” Compl. ¶ 23. In essence, Defendant alleges through her state action

17

commenced under California Probate Code § 850, that Plaintiff Hohu misappropriated assets in

18

violation of state law and state family court orders. This Court agrees with Judge Tucker that,

19

concerning Plaintiff’s instant claims, “Family Law orders stand on their own” and “ERISA does not

20

completely preempt [a] state court action simply because these independent legal duties arising out

21

of the subject orders and judgment may ultimately have an effect on ownership rights to sums

22

already distributed by an employee benefit plan.” Remand Order at 6.

23
24

Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s ability to challenge Linda Hohu’s entitlement to John
Hohu’s plan benefits post-distribution by arguing that, absent a qualified domestic relations order

25
26
27
28

5

Plaintiff’s reliance on Boggs v. Boggs, 520 U.S. 833 (1997), Engelhoff v. Engelhoff ex rel.
Breiner, 532 U.S. 141 (2001), and similar cases is misplaced. These cases address whether ERISA
preempts a particular state law as a defense to a state law claim. They do not govern complete
preemption under ERISA, nor do they present a jurisdictional holding. Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila
is the only relevant Supreme Court opinion that directly addresses federal question jurisdiction
premised on a theory of complete ERISA preemption.

14

1

(“QDRO”), ERISA’s anti-alienation provision prohibits any effort to assign or alienate an ERISA

2

participant’s plan benefits. Pl.’s Opp’n. Br. at 13. Section 1056 of ERISA states that “[e]ach

3

pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.”

4

29 U.S.C. § 1056(d). An exception to this general prohibition on alienation is made concerning the

5

“creation, assignment, or recognition of a right to any benefit payable with respect to a participant

6

pursuant to a domestic relations order,” including a “qualified domestic relations order” that meets

7

certain specified terms outlined in the statute. 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d)(3). Plaintiff argues that

8

Defendant cannot take advantage of this provision because “[n]o Qualified Domestic Relations

9

Order, within the meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 1056 (d)(3)(B), was ever entered by the Alameda Family

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16

Court with respect to the Cisco Life Insurance Plan of the Cisco RSU Plan.” Compl. ¶ 17.
As Judge Tucker acknowledged in her Remand Order:
The Supreme Court has expressly left it open whether the estate of a
deceased participant may bring an action in state or federal court
against the designated beneficiary to obtain the benefits after they are
distributed. See Kennedy v. Plan Adm’r for DuPont Sav. & Inv. Plan,
555 U.S. 285, 300 n.10 (2009); Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041,
1062 (9th Cir. 2010) cert. denied, denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 131 S. Ct.
1492, 179 L. Ed. 2d 305 (2011) (“It may not be that all constructive
trusts instituted by state courts, particularly those that seek to recover
ill-gotten gains, will have a sufficient connection with or reference to
an ERISA plan to trigger ERISA’s preemption provision.”).

17
18

Remand Order at 6 n.4 (emphasis added). Several courts have addressed the application of ERISA’s

19

anti-alienation provision to benefits after they have been distributed, and found “no conflict with

20

either ERISA’s objectives or relevant Supreme Court precedent,” and held “that ERISA does not

21

preempt post-distribution suits against ERISA beneficiaries.” Andochick v. Byrd, 709 F.3d 296, 301

22

(4th Cir. 2013) (emphasis added). In Andochick, the Fourth Circuit noted “that in reaching this

23

conclusion, we adopt the same view as every published appellate opinion to address the question.”

24

Id. (citing Estate of Kensinger v. URL Pharma, Inc., 674 F.3d 131, 135-39 (3d Cir. 2012); Appleton

25

v. Alcorn, 291 Ga. 107, 109-10 (2012); Sweebe v. Sweebe, 474 Mich. 151, 159-60 (2006); Pardee v.

26

Pers. Representative for Estate of Pardee, 112 P.3d 308, 315-16 (Okla. Civ. App. 2004)). The Ninth

27

Circuit has also interpreted the applicability of ERISA’s anti-alienation provisions to plan benefits

28

already distributed by a plan administrator, and has held “that this section does not preclude” a party

15

1

from suing under state law to recover funds “from benefits received [i.e. distributed] from ERISA-

2

qualified [benefit] plans.” Wright v. Riveland, 219 F.3d 905, 921 (9th Cir. 2000) (emphasis added).

3

Accordingly, Plaintiff Hohu may not rely on ERISA’s anti-alienation provision to shield distributed

4

plan benefits from Defendant Hatch’s state law claims, nor re-frame her ERISA preemption action

5

into an action to preserve plan benefits under ERISA’s anti-alienation provisions.

6

Consequently, the Court finds confidence in Judge Tucker’s conclusions regarding federal

7

subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s ERISA claims is warranted because her decision while

8

unreviewable “was substantially correct.” Standefer, 447 U.S. at 23 n.18. Plaintiff has offered no

9

persuasive argument to the contrary.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

B.

Rule 11 Sanctions
Defendant’s motion includes a Motion for Sanctions under Rule 11 against Plaintiff Linda

12

Hohu and her attorney for allegedly filing an “action asserting subject matter jurisdiction under

13

ERISA [despite] knowing that it completely lacks a factual foundation for subject matter jurisdiction

14

as a result of [Judge Tucker] . . . having already determined said claims.” Pl.’s Mot to Dismiss at 2.

15

Defendant seeks $ 3,646 in sanctions, an amount representing the attorney fees and costs incurred by

16

Wendy Hatch in seeking the dismissal of Plaintiff’s action before this Court.6

17

Rule 11 states, “[b]y presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper –

18

whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it – an attorney or unrepresented party

19

certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry

20

reasonable under the circumstances . . . [that] the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions are

21

warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing

22

existing law or for establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b). Rule 11 permits the imposition of

23

monetary and non-monetary sanctions on parties who violate its terms. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(4).

24

A court may, on its own, “order an attorney, law firm, or party to show cause why conduct

25

specifically described in the order has not violated Rule 11 . . .” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(3). A party

26
27
28

6

Wendy Hatch’s attorney, Heidi Stilb Lewis, has filed a declaration in support of
Defendant’s motion for sanctions. See Declaration of Heidi Stilb Lewis (Docket No. 13, Ex. 1). The
declaration substantiates Defendant’s calculation of the attorney fees and costs incurred in bringing
the instant motion.

16

1

may also independently move for sanctions against another party for violating Rule 11 following the

2

procedure outlined in subsection (c)(2). If “the court determines that [Rule 11] has been violated”

3

after the party or attorney facing sanctions has had a reasonable opportunity to respond, “the court

4

may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is

5

responsible for the violation.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(1). “Courts must apply an objective test in

6

assessing whether the rule has been violated. A violation of the rule does not require subjective bad

7

faith.” Yagman v. Republic Ins., 987 F.2d 622, 628 (9th Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

8

Defendant argues that sanctions are warranted in this matter because Plaintiff knew, by virtue

claims, and yet opted to file a second action before this Court re-pleading the precise jurisdictional

11
For the Northern District of California

of Judge Tucker’s Remand Order, that the federal courts lacked subject matter jurisdiction over her

10

United States District Court

9

arguments already rejected by Judge Tucker. In support of her motion, Defendant cites the Ninth

12

Circuit’s opinion in Orange Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Frontline Ventures Ltd., 792 F.2d 797 (9th Cir.

13

1986). In Frontline Ventures, the Ninth Circuit reviewed a decision by the U.S. District Court for

14

the District of Alaska to award sanctions against Orange Production Credit Association (“OPCA”)

15

under Rule 11. OPCA, the mortgagee of a ship, had filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the

16

Central District of California against the ship’s mortgagor (Frontline Ventures, Ltd.) to foreclose on

17

the mortgage and recover a deficiency on its note. The California district court dismissed the suit for

18

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id., 792 F.2d 797, 799. Subsequently, after Frontline Ventures

19

again defaulted on its payments on the note, OPCA filed a second suit against the mortgagor in the

20

district court in Alaska. The Alaska district court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the case

21

“for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and determined that Rule 11 sanctions would be imposed

22

against OPCA.” Id., 792 F.2d at 800. Upholding the imposition of sanctions, the Ninth Circuit held

23

that “OPCA violated Rule 11 by filing a complaint in the federal district court in Alaska which it

24

must have known completely lacked a factual foundation for subject matter jurisdiction” because, as

25

the Alaska district court found, “OPCA had refiled in Alaska the same lawsuit it had filed in

26

California knowing full well that the district court in Alaska lacked subject matter jurisdiction just as

27

the district court in California had lacked such jurisdiction.” Id. at 801. Plaintiff’s opposition brief

28

does not address Defendant’s motion for sanctions. See Pl.’s Opp’n. Br. (Docket No. 17).

17

1

While Orange Prod. Credit Ass’n v. Frontline Ventures Ltd. contains factual similarities to

2

the case at bar, there are two significant differences between that case and the present one that

3

counsel against the imposition of sanctions. First, there is no indication on the record before this

4

Court that Defendant Hatch has complied with Rule 11’s procedural requirements for imposing

5

sanctions. Rule 11(c)(2) provides that:

6

A motion for sanctions must be made separately from any other
motion and must describe the specific conduct that allegedly violates
Rule 11(b). The motion must be served under Rule 5, but it must not
be filed or be presented to the court if the challenged paper, claim,
defense, contention, or denial is withdrawn or appropriately corrected
within 21 days after service or within another time the court sets.

7
8
9

Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2). This subsection is often referred to as the Rule’s “safe harbor provision.”

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“The requirements of the rule are straightforward: The party seeking sanctions must serve the Rule

12

11 motion on the opposing party at least twenty-one days before filing the motion with the district

13

court, and sanctions may be sought only if the challenged pleading is not withdrawn or corrected

14

within twenty-one days after service of the motion.” Brickwood Contractors, Inc. v. Datanet Eng’g,

15

Inc., 369 F.3d 385, 389 (4th Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “It is clear from the language of the rule

16

that it imposes mandatory obligations upon the party seeking sanctions, so that failure to comply

17

with the procedural requirements precludes the imposition of the requested sanctions.” Id., 369 F.3d

18

at 389 (“Rule 11(c)(1)(A) thus establishes conditions precedent to the imposition of sanctions under

19

the rule. If those conditions are not satisfied, the Rule 11 motion for sanctions may not be filed with

20

the district court. If a non-compliant motion nonetheless is filed with the court, the district court

21

lacks authority to impose the requested sanctions.”). In the instant case, there is no evidence that

22

Defendant Hatch served her Rule 11 motion on Plaintiff Hohu twenty-one days before filing it with

23

the Court. See Declaration of Heidi Stilb Lewis (Docket No. 13, Ex. 1) (no mention of compliance

24

with Rule 11 procedural requirements). Consequently, both the text of Rule 11 and the fairness

25

considerations which underlie its safe harbor provision bar Defendant’s request for sanctions.7

26
27
28

7

The fact that Plaintiff Hohu failed to contest Defendant Hatch’s procedural compliance
with Rule 11 does not preclude its consideration by this Court. Although a party can forfeit the right
to argue against sanctions for failure to comply with Rule 11’s safe harbor provision, see Brickwood,
369 F.3d at 395 (“[T]he issue of whether a party has complied with the rule is subject to forfeiture if

18

1

Second, setting aside any possible procedural defects, it is not apparent that Plaintiff’s filing

2

of her declaratory relief action in this Court raises to the level of sanctionable conduct. Defendant’s

3

rational for the imposition of sanctions is based upon Judge Tucker’s Remand Order, and the

4

arguably foreseeable conclusion that this Court would likewise dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint for lack

5

of subject matter jurisdiction following that Order. See Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss at 4 (“Having failed

6

to convince Judge Tucker that the Federal Court had subject matter jurisdiction, Linda Hohu

7

immediately filed an action in this Court whereby she asserts federal question jurisdiction under

8

ERISA and seeks under ERISA [a] determination of the same claims alleged in the [earlier

9

proceeding].”); see also Declaration of Heidi Stilb Lewis at 2 (“The United States District Court
Central District Southern division already determined in connection with the claims raised by Linda

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Hohu’s action herein[] that federal subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. Instead of properly

12

challenging the court’s decision in this regard, Linda Hohu filed the within action forcing the

13

Administrator to incur unnecessary fees and costs in connection with obtaining a dismissal of the

14

action on the grounds that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”). However, as discussed

15

supra, there is considerable disagreement among courts as to whether an unreviewable remand order

16

such as Judge Tucker’s can have a preclusive effect on subsequent litigation between the same

17

parties. Contrary to Defendant’s assumption that “dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(1)” in this

18

matter “because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction . . . over the alleged claims as already

19

determined by the United States District Court Central District Southern Division,” Def.’s Mot. to

20

Dismiss at 4 (original in caps), whether issue preclusion attaches to the previously litigated question

21

of federal subject matter jurisdiction remains an open question in the Ninth Circuit. Consequently,

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

not timely raised.”), the Ninth Circuit has indicated that the matter is subject to some discretion.
See, e.g., Retail Flooring Dealers of America v. Beaulieu of America, LLC, 339 F.3d 1146, 1150 n.5
(9th Cir. 2003) (“Although Retail Flooring did not raise this argument before the district court [i.e.,
failure to comply with Rule 11’s safe harbor provision], an appellate court can review an issue not
raised nor objected to prior to appeal if necessary to prevent manifest injustice.”) (citation omitted);
see also Brickwood, 369 F.3d at 398–99 (“[G]iven the important purposes served by Rule 11 . . . and
the mandatory nature of its language, we believe that in most cases involving failure to comply with
the safe-harbor provisions, a proper application of the Olano Taylor standards [i.e., plain error on
appeal] will lead to correction of the error.”). But see Rector v. Approved Fed. Sav. Bank, 265 F.3d
248, 251–54 (4th Cir. 2001) (holding that the safe harbor provision was not jurisdictional and that
the attorney waived the defense when he failed to raise the argument to the district court in the first
instance and failed to raise it again on the first appeal).

19

1

the Court cannot objectively find, in line with Yagman v. Republic Ins., that Plaintiff violated Rule

2

11. Put another way, the Court cannot objectively determine that Plaintiff’s filing of her ERISA

3

complaint presents “claims, defenses, and other legal contentions” that are not “warranted by

4

existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for

5

establishing new law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(c)(2).

6

Defendant has not shown that she complied with Rule 11’s safe harbor provision prior to

7

filing her motion for sanctions, nor has she advanced a basis for sanctions by objectively showing

8

that Plaintiff’s complaint filed in this Court violates Rule 11. As such, the Court DENIES

9

Defendant’s motion to impose the requested sanctions.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

IV.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, this Court finds that the doctrine of collateral estoppel bars re-

12

litigation of the issue of federal question jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s complaint. The Court, therefore

13

GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court also

14

finds that Defendant Hatch has demonstrated neither compliance with the safe harbor provisions of

15

Rule 11, nor that the Plaintiff’s conduct in this matter raises to the level of sanctionable conduct

16

under the rule. Consequently, the Court DENIES Defendant’s motion for sanctions. The Clerk of

17

the Court is instructed to enter a final judgment in accordance with this opinion and close the file in

18

the case.

19

This order disposes of Docket No. 13.

20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: April 16, 2013
_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28

20