People of The State of California v. George Jerome Stevenson
2:19-cv-03126
C.D. Cal.May 2, 2019Background
- Defendants George Jerome Stevenson and Ezekiel Gamba Judah removed an action from Los Angeles County Superior Court to federal court on April 18, 2019.
- The Notice of Removal did not attach the underlying complaint (civil or criminal) but did attach a document labeled a "counterclaim."
- Defendants asserted federal-question and diversity jurisdiction in the Notice of Removal but did not attempt to establish diversity requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
- The court could not determine a federal-question basis from the (missing) plaintiff’s complaint and noted that federal jurisdiction cannot be premised on a counterclaim or defense.
- Because Defendants failed to establish subject-matter jurisdiction, the court remanded the case to state court and vacated the pending motion for a preliminary injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction exists | State (People of CA) sought remand to state court | Removal invoked federal-question and diversity jurisdiction; attached counterclaim | No jurisdiction shown; removal improper; remanded |
| Whether a counterclaim may supply federal-question jurisdiction | State implicitly argues no | Defendants relied on counterclaim to show federal question | Counterclaim cannot create federal-question jurisdiction; insufficient |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction was adequately pleaded | State argues requirements unmet | Defendants asserted diversity but did not establish statutory elements | Diversity not established; removal defective |
| Whether to stay or vacate preliminary injunction motion | State sought remand and to nullify federal action | Defendants filed motion for preliminary injunction in federal court | Motion vacated as court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2004) (court must examine subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (U.S. 2009) (federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on a counterclaim or anticipated defense)
- Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826 (U.S. 2002) (counterclaim cannot serve as basis for "arising under" jurisdiction)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (federal question must appear on face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint)
- Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1983) (limitations on federal jurisdiction premised on state-law claims)
- Progressive West Ins. Co. v. Preciado, 479 F.3d 1014 (9th Cir. 2007) (plaintiffs generally cannot remove their own state-court actions to federal court)