Summary
The United States District Court for the Southern District of California sua sponte remands the proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court holds that domestication of a sister-state judgment under California's Sister State Money Judgments Act is a supplementary proceeding, not a removable civil action, and that a federal court lacks authority to register, enforce, or vacate the state-court judgment at issue. The court leaves the defendant's motion to vacate for resolution by the San Diego Superior Court.
Holdings
- A proceeding to register a sister-state judgment under California's Sister State Money Judgments Act is a supplementary proceeding, not a removable civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), because it is inseparably connected to the underlying state judgment and is not readily assimilated to an ordinary action at law or suit in equity.
- The district court lacked original jurisdiction over the proceeding because the domestication of a state-court judgment could not have been filed originally in federal court.
- Defendant failed to establish federal-question or federal-officer removal jurisdiction because the notice of removal and the underlying documents did not allege facts plausibly satisfying the requirements for either jurisdictional basis.
Questions Presented
- Whether a proceeding to register or domesticate a sister-state money judgment under California's Sister State Money Judgments Act is a removable civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
- Whether the federal district court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over the domestication proceeding.
- Whether Defendant established federal-question or federal-officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1442.
- Whether a federal district court has authority to register, vacate, or enforce a state-court judgment under 28 U.S.C. § 1963.
Disposition
remanded
Cases Cited (34)
- Conseco Mktg., LLC v. IFA & Ins. Servs., Inc., 221 Cal. App. 4th 831, 838 (2013)(followed)
- Casey v. Hill, 79 Cal. App. 5th 937, 960 (2022), as modified on denial of reh’g (June 21, 2022)(followed)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994)(followed)
- Barker-Hatch v. Viejas Grp. Baron Long Capitan, 83 F. Supp. 2d 1155, 1156 (S.D. Cal. 2000)(followed)
- Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)(followed)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)(followed)
- Luther v. Countrywide Home Loan Servicing, L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008)(followed)
- California ex rel. Sacramento Metro. Air Quality Mgmt. Dist. v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000)(followed)
- Leite v. Crane Co., 749 F.3d 1117, 1122 (9th Cir. 2014)(followed)
- DeMartini v. DeMartini, No. 2:24-cv-00415 DJC CKD (PS), 2024 WL 1908080, at *1-*4 (E.D. Cal. May 1, 2024)(followed)
Showing top 10 of 34.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.