Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation · United States District Court for the Southern District of California · March 26, 2025 · No. 3:24-cv-00482-RBM-VET

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

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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

  1. 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).
  2. Whether the federal district court had original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 over the domestication proceeding.
  3. Whether Defendant established federal-question or federal-officer removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1442.
  4. 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.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…