Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza v. Royal Palace Royal Girls Cabaret, LLC
2:19-cv-09183
| C.D. Cal. | Oct 30, 2019Background
- Plaintiff Ilan N. Rosen Janfaza sued Royal Palace Royal Girls Cabaret, LLC (and related defendants) in Los Angeles Superior Court asserting six state-law causes of action: assault and battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent hiring/training/supervision/retention, negligence, false imprisonment, and a Bane Act claim.
- In the Bane Act allegation, the complaint included a single, broad reference to rights “secured by the United States and California constitutions.”
- Defendants removed the action to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 based on that constitutional reference.
- The court applied the well-pleaded-complaint rule and the principle that removal statutes are strictly construed against removal; the removing party bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
- Defendants argued the constitutional reference made the case removable; Plaintiff’s claims otherwise rested on state law and did not assert a standalone federal cause of action.
- The Court concluded the complaint did not clearly present a federal claim on its face, found Defendants failed to meet their burden, and remanded the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether removal is proper under § 1331 (federal-question) | Complaint pleads only state-law claims; no federal cause of action | Single reference to U.S. Constitution in Bane Act allegation creates a federal question | Remand: not removable; complaint does not clearly arise under federal law |
| Whether a passing reference to federal law converts state claims into federal ones | Plaintiff is master of the claim; vague references insufficient | Constitutional mention makes federal rights implicated, supporting removal | Passing/ambiguous references insufficient; artful-pleading exception did not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts have limited subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question removal)
- California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831 (9th Cir. 2004) (removal statute strictly construed against removal)
- Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1988) (burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the removing party)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (any doubt about right of removal requires rejection of federal jurisdiction)
- Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) (federal question must be clear from face of complaint)
- Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1987) (artful-pleading exception to well-pleaded complaint rule is narrow)