Opinion
Case No. CV 20-3057-JGB (JPR)
04-30-2020
DEAN HIMBLER AVILES, Plaintiff, v. MARIA YESENIA AVILES et al., Defendants
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION
The Court summarily remands this child-support action to state court because Dean Aviles removed it here improperly.
On April 1, 2020, Aviles filed a "Complaint . . . and Notice of Removal," purporting to remove Los Angeles County Superior Court case number BZ192020 — a 2015 child-support action — to this Court. (Compl. at 1; see id. at 2-3, 8-9, 16-18; Civ. Cover Sheet at 1.) He sues Maria Aviles, "an original party" and "other parent" in the child-support case, and eight additional parties, including Los Angeles County and related local and state agencies. (Compl. at 2-3.)
For nonconsecutively paginated documents, the Court uses the pagination generated by its Case Management/Electronic Case Filing system.
When the Court refers to "Aviles," it means Dean. --------
Remand is necessary because, among other reasons, Aviles does not competently allege facts supplying either diversity or federal-question jurisdietion. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005). Aviles and Maria Aviles are citizens of California. (See Compl. at 1-2; Civ. Cover Sheet at 1.) The local-government parties are, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, also citizens of California. See Moor v. Alameda Cnty., 411 U.S. 693, 721 (1973). Thus, there is no complete diversity of citizenship. See §§ 1332, 1441(b). Nor has Aviles properly invoked the Court's federal-question jurisdiction, alleging only that the "acts complained of raise federal questions." (Compl. at 3; see also Civ. Cover Sheet at 1 (indicating "federal question" as "basis of jurisdiction").) But the child-support action he purports to remove raises no federal issues. See Cnty. of San Bernardino v. McClain, No. ED CV 18-0202 CJC (JCG), 2018 WL 4694042, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2018) ("The County is seeking to collect child support payments from Defendant pursuant to the California Family Code, which arises under state law and does not depend upon the resolution of a substantial question of federal law."); see also §§ 1331, 1441(a); Minasyan v. Gonzales, 401 F.3d 1069, 1077 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that federal courts' "deference to state law" in areas of domestic relations is "[s]o strong" (citation omitted)).
To the extent Aviles wants to bring a separate civil-rights lawsuit in this Court relating to the state-court child-support action, he may attempt to do so without removing that case here. But given that most of his allegations concern the state-court judgment obligating him to pay child support and Maria Aviles's efforts to enforce that ruling, any such lawsuit would likely be barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Bell v. City of Boise, 709 F.3d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 2013) ("The Rooker-Feldman doctrine forbids a losing party in state court from filing suit in federal court complaining of an injury caused by a state court judgment, and seeking federal court review and rejection of that judgment."); Troy of Family Carslake v. Dep't of Child Support Servs., No. 18-CV-06176-YGR, 2019 WL 2142036, at *7 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2019) (Rooker-Feldman barred claim when plaintiff requested that federal court "terminate . . . child support collection case against him," "remove all negative credit reports submitted in an effort to enforce . . . child support obligation," and "dismiss, terminate and void ALL family court orders" (emphasis in original)).
Plaintiff alleges that Maria Aviles acted "deceitfully" by failing to "disclose[]" the child-support action, thereby preventing him from appearing in it. (Compl. at 5.) But he did appear in that action, albeit belatedly, and in 2017 moved to set aside the judgment. See Online Servs., Super. Ct. of Cal., Cnty. of L.A. (search for case no. BZ192020), http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/index.aspx?casetype=civil (last visited Apr. 28, 2020). Thus, Rooker-Feldman would likely still bar any action here challenging the child-support judgment. See Howard v. RJF Fin., LLC, No. CV-11-1213-PHX-GMS., 2012 WL 170904, at *4 (D. Ariz. Jan. 20, 2012) (Rooker-Feldman applied when plaintiff had "full and fair opportunity" to raise fraud allegations in state court that entered default judgment against him, as evidenced by his filing postjudgment motion there), aff'd, 538 F. App'x 824 (9th Cir. 2013); cf. Reusser v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 525 F.3d 855, 860 (9th Cir. 2008) (Rooker-Feldman applied when state court, after considering plaintiffs' fraud claims, declined to vacate default judgment against them).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Central Civil West Courthouse, 600 South Commonwealth Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90005, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of it on the parties. DATED: April 30, 2020
/s/_________
JESUS G. BERNAL
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Presented by: /s/_________
Jean Rosenbluth
U.S. Magistrate Judge