Camarata

MEMORANDUM **

Gene A. Camarata appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment. We affirm.

I

The district court properly denied Camarata’s motion to remand because it had subject matter jurisdiction over Camarata’s claims asserted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . Munger v. City of Glasgow Police Dep’t, 227 F.3d 1082 , 1085 (9th Cir.2000) (stating that the federal courts have jurisdiction over § 1983 claims). The fact that the defendants have raised some Eleventh Amendment defenses does not alter this conclusion. Wis. Dep’t of Corr. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 389 , 118 S.Ct. 2047 , 141 L.Ed.2d 364 (1998).

II

Under Washington law, “[f]alse arrest may be committed only by one who has legal authority to arrest or who had pretended legal authority to arrest.” Bender v. City of Seattle, 99 Wash.2d 582 , 664 P.2d 492, 499 (Wash.1983) (en banc) (citing Kilcup v. McManus, 64 Wash.2d 771 , 394 P.2d 375 (Wash.1964) (en banc)); see also Demelash v. Ross Stores, Inc., 105 Wash.App. 508 , 20 P.3d 447, 458 (Wash.Ct.App.2001). Therefore, the district court correctly granted summary judgment as to Camarata’s claim of false arrest because none of the defendants had actual authority to…