Dorian Carter v. Tracy Sheen
2:19-cv-03217
C.D. Cal.Aug 10, 2020Background:
- Defendant Nathalee Evans removed the action to federal court on April 23, 2019; the dispute concerns the proper trustee and related relief arising from a Los Angeles Superior Court case.
- The underlying state action, Dorian Carter v. Tracy Sheen (Case No. BC458090), was filed in March 2011 and centers on default/default-judgment issues and trust-related relief.
- On July 6, 2020, Carter and Evans filed a Notice of Settlement and Proposed Judgment asking the federal court to grant various forms of relief tied to the state proceedings.
- The Court issued an Order to Show Cause (July 8, 2020) noting defects: Tracy Sheen had not been served, a possible lack of a real case or controversy, doubts about subject-matter jurisdiction, and uncertainty whether the requested relief could be issued.
- Evans (with Carter) filed a Response (July 31, 2020) arguing federal-question jurisdiction under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (alleging discriminatory retaliation related to a voting-rights matter) and asserting Evans was domiciled in Oregon at removal for diversity jurisdiction purposes.
- The Court found the Response insufficient to establish federal-question or diversity jurisdiction, concluded it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, and remanded the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Federal-question jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. §1331) | Carter argued federal question exists under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 due to discriminatory retaliation tied to a voting-rights association. | Evans joined the federal civil-rights theory and cited a Judicial Ethics opinion as supportive. | Court rejected the showing: cited laws and ethics opinion did not plausibly establish a federal question; federal jurisdiction not shown. |
| Diversity jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. §1332 — complete diversity) | Carter maintained Evans was a citizen of Oregon at time of removal, creating diversity from Carter (California). | Evans said she had residences in California and Oregon and later moved to Oregon after personal changes; timing and intent unclear. | Court held domicile at filing and at removal was not established; complete diversity not shown. |
| Amount in controversy (>$75,000) | Carter/Notice sought relief but did not quantify damages or show the requisite amount. | Parties did not provide evidence or argument proving the amount exceeds $75,000. | Court found the amount in controversy not established. |
| Justiciability / authority to grant relief (case or controversy; relief seeking to override state default-judgment issues) | Carter/Notice sought federal relief tied to the state court’s refusal to enter default judgment and trust-related rulings. | Evans sought the same outcome in federal court. | Court determined the core dispute concerned state-court default-judgment matters (no clear federal question); such matters belong in state court; remand required. |
Key Cases Cited
- Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 562 U.S. 428 (federal courts must ensure they do not exceed their jurisdiction)
- Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U.S. 826 (complete diversity requirement)
- Dole Food Co. v. Patrickson, 538 U.S. 468 (diversity jurisdiction hinges on parties' citizenship at time suit filed)
- Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (test for state citizenship/domicile)
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (domicile is permanent home with intent to remain or return)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (if any doubt about right of removal, federal jurisdiction is rejected)
- Lew v. Moss, 797 F.2d 747 (change of domicile requires physical presence plus intent to remain)