Harden v. Mendoza
4:17-cv-00854
E.D. Mo.May 1, 2017Background
- In July 2016 Harden filed an ex parte adult-abuse petition and order of protection against Mendoza in the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri (Case No. 16SL-PN03459).
- Mendoza was served with the ex parte order on October 3, 2016; a full order of protection issued October 24, 2016.
- Mendoza moved to set aside the protection order; that motion was denied. Harden later moved to hold Mendoza in contempt for violating the order; the contempt motion remained pending.
- Mendoza filed a notice of removal to federal court on March 7, 2017, asserting due process violations, biased judges, suppression of evidence, and other constitutional defects in the state proceedings.
- The district court evaluated timeliness, subject-matter jurisdiction, federal-question removal, diversity, and Younger abstention and concluded removal was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of removal | — | Mendoza: federal removal filed March 7, 2017. | Untimely — removal filed more than 30 days after service. |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction (diversity) | — | Mendoza: federal court should hear case. | No diversity — both parties are Missouri citizens. |
| Federal-question removal | Harden: state-law adult-abuse petition. | Mendoza: asserts federal due-process violations related to state proceedings. | No federal-question — claim arises under state law; federal issues concern state-court process only. |
| Abstention (Younger) | — | Mendoza: seeks federal relief; did not argue inability to litigate in state court. | Abstention appropriate — ongoing state proceedings implicate important state interests and provide an adequate forum. |
Key Cases Cited
- Peters v. Union Pacific R. Co., 80 F.3d 257 (8th Cir.) (removal depends on federal subject-matter jurisdiction)
- In re Prempro Products Liability Litigation, 591 F.3d 613 (8th Cir.) (defendant may remove only if case could have been filed in federal court)
- Krispin v. May Dep't Stores Co., 218 F.3d 919 (8th Cir.) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
- Central Iowa Power Co-op. v. Midwest Indep. Transmission Sys. Operator, Inc., 561 F.3d 904 (8th Cir.) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction on party seeking removal; doubts resolved in favor of remand)
- In re Otter Tail Power Co., 116 F.3d 1207 (8th Cir.) (federal question exists when federal law creates the cause of action or relief depends on a substantial federal issue)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (U.S.) (federal courts must abstain when state proceedings implicate important state interests)
- Norwood v. Dickey, 409 F.3d 901 (8th Cir.) (applying Younger abstention factors)
- Levy v. Ohl, 477 F.3d 988 (8th Cir.) (district courts may take judicial notice of public state records)
- Stutzka v. McCarville, 420 F.3d 757 (8th Cir.) (courts may take judicial notice of judicial opinions and public records)