Mardesich et al v. Ignacio

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. If Defendant does not, by 3/16/2012, demonstrate in writing the basis for this courts subject matter jurisdiction, the court will summarily remand this action to Santa Clara County Superior Court. No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered by the court. Signed by Judge Edward J. Davila on 3/2/2012. (ejdlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/2/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00867 EJD

CONNIE MARDESICH, et. al.,

11

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW
CAUSE

Plaintiff(s),
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

v.
TEVIS R. IGNACIO,

14
Defendant(s).
15

/

16

I.

INTRODUCTION

17

On February 22, 2012, Defendant Tevis R. Ignacio (“Defendant”) removed to this court what

18

appears to be a domestic relations action originally filed in Santa Clara County Superior Court. See

19

Docket Item No. 1. Having reviewed Defendant’s pleading, the court is unable to determine the

20

basis for federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the court issues the instant Memorandum and Order to

21

Show Cause.
II.

22

DISCUSSION

23

A.

Removal Jurisdiction Generally

24

Removal jurisdiction is a creation of statute. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592

25

F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979) (“The removal jurisdiction of the federal courts is derived entirely

26

from the statutory authorization of Congress.”). Generally, only those state court actions that could

27

have been originally filed in federal court may be removed. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (“Except as

28

otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which
1
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00867 EJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

2

defendant.”); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“Only state-court

3

actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by

4

defendant.”). Accordingly, the removal statute provides two basic ways in which a state court action

5

may be removed to federal court: (1) the case presents a federal question, or (2) the case is between

6

citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(a), (b). Diversity jurisdiction can only arise if all

7

parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

well-pleaded complaint to determine whether a cause of action is created by federal law or whether

10

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal

11
For the Northern District of California

When removal is based on the presence of a federal question, the court looks to the face of a

9

United States District Court

8

law. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (citing Franchise Tax

12

Bd. of California v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). “[I]t must be clear

13

from the face of the plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint that there is a federal question.” Duncan v.

14

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). The complaint as it existed at time of removal dictates

15

whether removal jurisdiction is proper. Libhart, 592 F.2d at 1065.

16
17

An anticipated or even actual federal defense or counterclaim is not sufficient to confer
jurisdiction. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. at 10.

18

B.

19

Domestic relations cases are subject to an equitable abstention principle commonly known as

Domestic Relations Cases

20

the “domestic relations” exception to federal jurisdiction. See Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S.

21

689, 703 (1992). “The whole subject of the domestic relations of husband and wife, parent and

22

child, belongs to the laws of the States, and not to the laws of the United States.” Ohio ex rel.

23

Popovici v. Agler, 280 U.S. 379, 383 (1930) (quoting In re Burrus, 136 U.S. 586, 593-94 (1890)).

24

For this reason, “federal courts must decline jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations

25

when the primary issue concerns the status of parent and child or husband and wife.” Buechold v.

26

Ortiz, 401 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1968).

27

C.

Application to this Case

28

Here, Defendant’s pleading does not demonstrate either the presence of a federal question or
2
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00867 EJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

1

a basis to find complete diversity. As such, this case is not removable to on its face. In any event,

2

this court would be obliged to decline jurisdiction even if such jurisdiction was shown since the

3

underlying state court action appears to be a dissolution of marriage.

4

Moreover, despite Defendant’s reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1443, there are no allegations

5

contained in the pleading which would support an application of that statute. See Georgia v. Rachel,

6

384 U.S. 780, 792 (1966) (holding that the removal language contained in 28 U.S.C. § 1443 “must

7

be construed to mean any law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial equality.”).

8

To the extent he seeks review of state court orders, this court is without jurisdiction to do so. See

9

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263
U.S. 413, 415 (1923); see also Samuel v. Michaud, 980 F. Supp. 1381 1411-12 (D. Idaho 1996)

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(“The district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction either to conduct a direct review of state court

12

judgment or to scrutinize the state court’s application of various rules and procedures pertaining to

13

the state case.”).

14
15

III.

ORDER

The court orders Defendant to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of

16

subject matter jurisdiction. If Defendant does not, by March 16, 2012, demonstrate in writing the

17

basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the court will summarily remand this action to Santa

18

Clara County Superior Court. No hearing will be held on the Order to Show Cause unless ordered

19

by the court.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22

Dated: March 2, 2012
EDWARD J. DAVILA
United States District Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
3
CASE NO. 5:12-cv-00867 EJD
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE