Anthony v. Galvez

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: April 4, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00407
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAN ANTHONY, Case No.: 25-CV-407 JLS (MMP)

12 Petitioner, ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR 13 v. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 14 CORINA GALVEZ,

15 Respondent. (ECF No. 1) 16

17 On February 24, 2025, Petitioner Marian Anthony (“Petitioner”) filed a Notice of 18 Removal (“Notice,” ECF No. 1). Subsequently, on February 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a 19 Motion for Writ of Mandamus; an Emergency Ex Parte Request for Relief, Order, and 20 Hearing; and an Emergency Ex Parte Motion to Dismiss Improper Procedure by Debora 21 Cumba and Strike. See ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4. 22 On March 5, 2025, the Court issued an Order directing Petitioner to show cause as 23 to why subject matter jurisdiction exists over this matter. ECF No. 6 (“Order”). 24 Specifically, the Court noted that Petitioner’s Notice of Removal was deficient as it did not 25 include a copy of the initial pleading, leaving the Court unable to identify the case 26 Petitioner sought to remove to federal court. Id. at 2. And the Court expressed that, to the 27 extent Petitioner was intending to remove a family matter involving child support from the 28 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, “federal courts must decline 1 jurisdiction of cases concerning domestic relations when the primary issue concerns the 2 status of parent and child or husband and wife.” Id. at 2–3 (first quoting Buechold v. Ortiz, 3 401 F.2d 371, 372 (9th Cir. 1968); then citing Csibi v. Fustos, 670 F.2d 134, 137–38 (9th 4 Cir. 1982); and then citing Thompson v. Thompson, 798 F.2d 1547, 1558 (9th Cir. 1986)). 5 On March 24, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion for Writ of Prohibition and Stay and a 6 Notice of Lodgment of Transcripts and Documents. ECF Nos. 7, 8. The next day, 7 Petitioner filed his Response to the Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 9 (“Resp.”). In his 8 Response, Petitioner clarifies that he is seeking to remove the San Diego Superior Court 9 Case No. 19FL005322N. See id. at 1 (“Petitioner Marian Anthony submits this response . 10 . . addressing concerns about subject matter jurisdiction over the removal of San Diego 11 Superior Court Case No. 19FL005322N involving Respondent Galvez.”). Petitioner 12 argues that there is jurisdiction “based on constitutional claims, diversity, and state court 13 failures necessitating federal oversight of deprivation of right under color of law predicated 14 by fraud, including fraud upon the court[.]” Id. at 2. Respondent did not file a reply. See 15 generally Docket.1 16 As Petitioner has now identified the case he seeks to remove, the Court evaluates 17 whether removal is proper. The Court finds it is not. 18 The federal removal statute provides that “any civil action brought in a State Court 19 of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed 20 by the defendant or the defendants” to the appropriate federal district court. 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1441(a) (emphasis added). In the context of § 1441(a), “the term ‘defendant’ refers only 22 to the party sued by the original plaintiff[.]” Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. v. Jackson, 23 587 U.S. 435, 437 (2019). 24

25 1 The Court also notes that, on April 2, 2025, Petitioner filed a Motion to Set Aside Property Settlement 26 Agreement for Declaratory Judgment Regarding Nature of Stipulated Equity Agreement, Fraud, Diversity and Stay (ECF No. 11) along with a Notice of Lodgment of Documents in Support (ECF No. 12). The 27 same day, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition by Improper Procedure of Hearing Officer 28 Deborah Cumba (ECF No. 13) and a Notice of Lodgment of Documents in Support (ECF No. 14). 1 Petitioner is not a defendant in the state action he wishes to remove.” Accordingly, 2 || this Court lacks jurisdiction and may not allow this case to proceed in federal court. See 3 |le.g., Sharma v. HIS Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1 by Deutsche Bank Nat’l Tr. Co., 4 ||23 F.4th 1167, 1170-71 (9th Cir. 2022) (finding district court erred by failing to remand 5 || where the party who removed the case was not a named defendant); see also Shamrock Oil 6 || & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107—08 (1941); Am. Int'l Underwriters (Philippines), 7 v. Cont’l Ins. Co., 843 F.2d 1253, 1260 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The right to remove a state 8 || court case to federal court is clearly limited to defendants.”).° 9 In light of the foregoing, the Court REMANDS case 19FL005322N to the Superior 10 || Court of California, County of San Diego. As this concludes the litigation in this matter, 11 || the Clerk of the Court SHALL CLOSE the file. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 ||Dated: April 4, 2025 a. :

14 on. Janis L. Sammartino 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 2 Petitioner has not attached the underlying complaint to his Notice of Removal as required by 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1446. However, Petitioner has attached a Superior Court “Register of Actions” in 19FL005322N, 74 identifying him as the Petitioner and Corina Galvez as Respondent. Exhibit A2, ECF No. 1-2 at 2. And Petitioner does not argue he is a defendant in the underlying action or provide any reason for the Court to 25 || believe he is the defendant; rather, he consistently refers to himself as the Petitioner and Corina Galvez as Respondent. 26 3 As the Court finds removal was improper, the Court does not reach whether it must otherwise decline 27 jurisdiction over this action based on the domestic relations exception to jurisdiction. See Buechold, 401 28 F.2d at 372; see also Csibi, 670 F.2d at 137-38.