From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Aquino v. Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 19, 2011
Case No. EDCV 11-01295 DMG (DTBx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)

Opinion

Case No. EDCV 11-01295 DMG (DTBx)

09-19-2011

Jose Aquino, et al. v. Victor Page, et al.


CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE , UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION

SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION

On August 15, 2011, Defendants Victor Page, Laverta Page, Vincent Page, and Kevin Page ("the Pages") removed this action from Riverside County Superior Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Although all of Plaintiffs' causes of action arise under state law, the Pages assert that the complaint raises a substantial federal question because it concerns an agreement to sell a Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") television broadcast license. (Notice of Removal [Doc. # 1] ¶¶ 6-9.)

The Pages do not indicate whether the remaining defendants—KZSW Television, Inc., Michael Streby, David Goran, and Nadir Zulfqar—have been served and, if so, whether they join in the removal.

In general, a contractual dispute does not raise a substantial federal question merely because the contract involves property subject to federal regulation. See D.B. Zwirn Special Opportunities Fund, L.P. v. Tama Broad., Inc., 550 F. Supp. 2d 481, 488 (S.D.N.Y. 2008) ("Plaintiff's invocation of the requirement of FCC approval does not, standing alone, convert its breach of contract claim into one that 'arises under' the Communications Act."); cf. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) ("[I]t is well established that just because a case involves a copyright does not mean that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists." (citing Vestron, Inc. v. Home Box Office Inc., 839 F.2d 1380, 1381 (9th Cir. 1988))).

Therefore, the Pages are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Pages shall file their response by September 29, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Aquino v. Page

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Sep 19, 2011
Case No. EDCV 11-01295 DMG (DTBx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)
Case details for

Aquino v. Page

Case Details

Full title:Jose Aquino, et al. v. Victor Page, et al.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Sep 19, 2011

Citations

Case No. EDCV 11-01295 DMG (DTBx) (C.D. Cal. Sep. 19, 2011)