Dean Himbler Aviles v. Maria Yesenia Aviles
2:20-cv-03057
C.D. Cal.Apr 30, 2020Background
- Dean Aviles filed a “Complaint . . . and Notice of Removal” attempting to remove Los Angeles County Superior Court case No. BZ192020 (a 2015 child-support action) to federal court on April 1, 2020.
- Defendants named include Maria Aviles (the other parent) and several Los Angeles County and state agencies.
- Aviles asserted federal-question jurisdiction (checked "federal question" on the cover sheet) but pleaded only that the "acts complained of raise federal questions."
- Diversity jurisdiction is lacking because Aviles, Maria Aviles, and the local-government defendants are citizens of California.
- The underlying state action concerns enforcement of child support under state law; the court found no substantial federal issue presented and remanded for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
- The court further noted that any federal challenge to the state child-support judgment would likely be barred by the Rooker–Feldman doctrine, and that Aviles had in fact appeared postjudgment and moved to set aside the judgment in state court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal meets diversity jurisdiction | Aviles invoked diversity/general federal jurisdiction | Defendants are California citizens/local governments; no complete diversity | No — complete diversity absent, so diversity jurisdiction not established |
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Aviles claimed the acts "raise federal questions" | Underlying dispute is child-support enforcement under California law, not federal law | No — federal-question jurisdiction not properly pleaded or present |
| Whether Rooker–Feldman permits federal review of state child-support judgment | Aviles implied federal relief related to the state judgment | State-court judgment enforcement is outside federal review; losing state-party cannot seek federal rejection of judgment | Likely barred — Rooker–Feldman would preclude federal claims that effectively seek to overturn the state judgment |
| Whether removal was proper | Aviles removed the state case to federal court | Removal improper because no subject-matter jurisdiction shown | Court remanded the action to state court for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (statutory limits on federal removal and jurisdiction)
- Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693 (local governments treated as citizens of their state for diversity purposes)
- Minasyan v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir.) (courts' deference to state law in domestic-relations contexts)
- Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890 (9th Cir.) (application of Rooker–Feldman doctrine)
- Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855 (9th Cir.) (Rooker–Feldman bars federal claims that seek review of state-court rulings)