1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JS-6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FARIBA KERMANSHAHI, Case No. CV 20-01466 FMO (RAOx) 12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 MICHAEL JAME ADDINEH, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner Fariba Kermanshahi (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Dissolution of 20 Marriage in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 16, 2017. Notice of 21 Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Petition (“Pet.”), Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner requests 22 dissolution of her marriage with Respondent Michael Jame Addineh (“Respondent”). 23 Pet. at 1. Respondent filed a Notice of Removal on February 13, 2020 invoking this 24 Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Removal at 1-9; see Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. Respondent 25 also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3. 26 /// 27 //// 28 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 4 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 5 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 6 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 7 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 8 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 9 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 10 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 11 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 12 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)). A 13 defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden 14 of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 15 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus 16 v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 Respondent asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 Articles I and III of the U.S. Constitution. Removal at 5. Specifically, Respondent 19 asserts jurisdiction under Article III, section 2. Id. Article I of the U.S. Constitution 20 establishes and sets forth the powers of Congress. Article III, section 2 provides, in 21 relevant part, that the judicial power extends to certain cases, including inter alia, all 22 cases arising under the treaties, laws, and Constitution of the United States, and cases 23 between citizens of different states. 24 Additionally, Respondent asserts that venue is proper in the Central District of 25 California due to several constitutional violations including a violation of Article 1, 26 section 4, violations of the First and Fifth Amendment, and a procedural due process 27 violation. Removal at 2-3. Respondent asserts that this Court “has jurisdiction over 28 the Demand for an investigation of outrageous and unethical deceptive practice under 1 the color of law and depriving Plaintiff of rights as agents and officers cannot violate 2 rules and place conflicts and dispute when there is no facts to support a claim.” Id. 3 at 3. 4 Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is established by either 28 U.S.C. 5 §§ 1331 or 1332. See Blondeel-Timmerman v. Sunset Bronson Servs., LLC, No. CV 6 18-9504 PSG (JEMx), 2018 WL 7395156, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018). Section 7 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 8 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 9 id. § 1331. Section 1332 provides that federal “district courts shall have original 10 jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 11 value of $75,000,” and is between “citizens of different States.” Id. § 1332. A 12 defendant may remove to federal court a state court civil action when the federal 13 court has original jurisdiction. See id. § 1441(a). 14 The Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached state court 15 documents makes it clear that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the instant 16 matter. First, there does not appear to be subject matter jurisdiction over the instant 17 matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As discussed above, section 1331 provides that 18 “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 19 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Respondent 20 appears to allege that federal question jurisdiction exists as a result of several 21 constitutional violations related to the state court proceeding. Specifically, 22 Respondent contends that the Petition would infringe upon his Fourth and Fifth 23 Amendment rights because the “subject matter being demanded” are private papers, 24 “i.e. ecclesiastical private indenture.” Removal at 5. He also states that “Respondent 25 has objected and has been slander[ed] by this act of this court.” Id. Additionally, 26 Respondent alleges that the matter is private not public, and that continuation of the 27 28 1 case would be a direct violation of his rights. Id.1 Respondent’s arguments disregard 2 the long-established well-pleaded complaint rule. The well-pleaded complaint rule 3 “provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 4 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 5 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). The Court’s review 6 of the Petition shows that there is no federal question apparent from the face of the 7 Petition, which appears to be solely a petition for dissolution of marriage. Because 8 Plaintiff’s Petition does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully 9 pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 10 Second, Respondent has not adequately met his burden in proving diversity 11 jurisdiction should apply. Section 1332(a) provides, in relevant part, that federal 12 “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 13 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and 14 is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Respondent appears 15 to assert that diversity of citizenship exists because Petitioner and Respondent are 16 dual citizens of the United States and Iran. See Removal at 6-7. However, the civil 17 cover sheet notes that Respondent is a citizen of this state, but the cover sheet and 18 Notice of Removal fail to identify the state citizenship of Plaintiff.2 See Removal at 19 1-8; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1; see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 858 20 (9th Cir.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 JS-6 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FARIBA KERMANSHAHI, Case No. CV 20-01466 FMO (RAOx) 12 Petitioner,
13 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 MICHAEL JAME ADDINEH, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondent. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Petitioner Fariba Kermanshahi (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Dissolution of 20 Marriage in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 16, 2017. Notice of 21 Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Petition (“Pet.”), Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner requests 22 dissolution of her marriage with Respondent Michael Jame Addineh (“Respondent”). 23 Pet. at 1. Respondent filed a Notice of Removal on February 13, 2020 invoking this 24 Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Removal at 1-9; see Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. Respondent 25 also filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3. 26 /// 27 //// 28 1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 4 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 5 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 6 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 7 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 8 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 9 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 10 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 11 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 12 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)). A 13 defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden 14 of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 15 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus 16 v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 Respondent asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 18 Articles I and III of the U.S. Constitution. Removal at 5. Specifically, Respondent 19 asserts jurisdiction under Article III, section 2. Id. Article I of the U.S. Constitution 20 establishes and sets forth the powers of Congress. Article III, section 2 provides, in 21 relevant part, that the judicial power extends to certain cases, including inter alia, all 22 cases arising under the treaties, laws, and Constitution of the United States, and cases 23 between citizens of different states. 24 Additionally, Respondent asserts that venue is proper in the Central District of 25 California due to several constitutional violations including a violation of Article 1, 26 section 4, violations of the First and Fifth Amendment, and a procedural due process 27 violation. Removal at 2-3. Respondent asserts that this Court “has jurisdiction over 28 the Demand for an investigation of outrageous and unethical deceptive practice under 1 the color of law and depriving Plaintiff of rights as agents and officers cannot violate 2 rules and place conflicts and dispute when there is no facts to support a claim.” Id. 3 at 3. 4 Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is established by either 28 U.S.C. 5 §§ 1331 or 1332. See Blondeel-Timmerman v. Sunset Bronson Servs., LLC, No. CV 6 18-9504 PSG (JEMx), 2018 WL 7395156, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018). Section 7 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 8 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See 9 id. § 1331. Section 1332 provides that federal “district courts shall have original 10 jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 11 value of $75,000,” and is between “citizens of different States.” Id. § 1332. A 12 defendant may remove to federal court a state court civil action when the federal 13 court has original jurisdiction. See id. § 1441(a). 14 The Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached state court 15 documents makes it clear that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the instant 16 matter. First, there does not appear to be subject matter jurisdiction over the instant 17 matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. As discussed above, section 1331 provides that 18 “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 19 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Respondent 20 appears to allege that federal question jurisdiction exists as a result of several 21 constitutional violations related to the state court proceeding. Specifically, 22 Respondent contends that the Petition would infringe upon his Fourth and Fifth 23 Amendment rights because the “subject matter being demanded” are private papers, 24 “i.e. ecclesiastical private indenture.” Removal at 5. He also states that “Respondent 25 has objected and has been slander[ed] by this act of this court.” Id. Additionally, 26 Respondent alleges that the matter is private not public, and that continuation of the 27 28 1 case would be a direct violation of his rights. Id.1 Respondent’s arguments disregard 2 the long-established well-pleaded complaint rule. The well-pleaded complaint rule 3 “provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 4 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 5 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). The Court’s review 6 of the Petition shows that there is no federal question apparent from the face of the 7 Petition, which appears to be solely a petition for dissolution of marriage. Because 8 Plaintiff’s Petition does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully 9 pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 10 Second, Respondent has not adequately met his burden in proving diversity 11 jurisdiction should apply. Section 1332(a) provides, in relevant part, that federal 12 “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 13 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and 14 is between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Respondent appears 15 to assert that diversity of citizenship exists because Petitioner and Respondent are 16 dual citizens of the United States and Iran. See Removal at 6-7. However, the civil 17 cover sheet notes that Respondent is a citizen of this state, but the cover sheet and 18 Notice of Removal fail to identify the state citizenship of Plaintiff.2 See Removal at 19 1-8; Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1; see also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 858 20 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[F]ailure to specify [party’s] state citizenship was fatal to . . . 21 assertion of diversity jurisdiction.”) 22 Similarly, Respondent has not asserted that the amount in controversy exceeds 23 the sum or value of $75,000. See Removal at 1-8. The Petition places at issue debts 24 and assets, including “700 full Bahar Azadi gold coins” and money from a bank
25 1 Respondent states that because the matter is private and not public, this Court is 26 without jurisdiction. Removal at 5. While Respondent references “this court,” it appears that he is attempting to challenge the state court’s jurisdiction. See id. 27 2 On the civil cover sheet, Respondent identifies himself as Plaintiff. See Dkt. No. 28 1-1 at 1. 1 account. Pet. at 1, 3. However, the Petition does not provide an amount in 2 controversy, placing the burden on Respondent to “actually prov[e]” that the amount 3 in controversy is satisfied. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. Respondent has offered 4 no facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Removal at 5 1-8. 6 Moreover, even if Respondent had made an adequate showing that the amount 7 in controversy exceeds $75,000, the Court would still lack jurisdiction pursuant to 8 the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. The domestic relations 9 exception “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child 10 custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693-95, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 11 119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992). The underlying case here is a petition for dissolution of 12 marriage, which appears to fall squarely within the domestic relations exception for 13 suits requesting issuance of divorce decrees. Harper v. Farkas, No. CV 18-10436 14 DDP AGR, 2019 WL 95132, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (“Diversity suits for 15 divorce , alimony or child custody decrees fall outside federal jurisdiction.”). 16 Finally, the Court finds that removal is untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1446(b)(1), “[t]he notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed 18 within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a 19 copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action 20 or proceeding is based.” Here, Respondent does not allege that removal is timely. 21 See Removal at 1-8. The Petition was filed more than three years ago on August 16, 22 2017. See Pet. at 1. The Court takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s filing of a proof 23 of service on August 30, 2017 and Respondent’s Response filed on September 18, 24 2017.3 See Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (“It is 25 well established that [courts] may take judicial notice of judicial proceedings in other 26 3 Case Information for Case No. 17STFL03457, Superior Court of County of Los 27 Angeles, http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/index.aspx?casetype=civil, then 28 search 17STFL03457. 1 | courts.”). Accordingly, Respondent’s Notice of Removal is untimely. See Deutsche 2 || Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Hixon, No. CV 10-06491 DMG, 2010 WL 3911554, at *1 (C.D. 3 || Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) (finding defendant’s filing of a demurrer to the complaint meant 4 || that defendant had received a copy of the complaint). Thus, the Court lacks 5 || jurisdiction. 6 For the reasons set forth above, Respondent has not met his burden of proving 7 || that removal is proper. 8 III. 9 CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 11 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s request to proceed in forma 13 || pauperis is DENIED as moot. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. 15 16 || DATED: February 24, 2020 17 FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 || Presented by: 20 | Repel a, OC || ROZELLA A.OLIVER 97 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28