Wilkins

(after stating the above facts).

The complaint, in its challenge of the constitutionality of the California Agricultural Proration Act, Chapter 754, p. 1969, Stats. 1933, as amended, in its application to the production of raisins in California for the • year 1940, states a claim arising under the constitution and the laws of the United States. But, as no claim of damages in excess of $3,000 or in any amount is averred, the Court is without jurisdiction. Both a substantial federal *1005 question and the jurisdictional minimum must exist before we entertain an action seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a state statute by state officers. See Judicial Code, Sec. 24(1), 28 U.S.C.A. § 41 (1). See my opinion in Neale v. Railroad Commission, D.C.,Calif.1940, 32 F.Supp. 407 .

The action cannot be entertained as “arising under any law regulating commerce.” Judicial Code, Sec. 24(8), 28 U.S. C.A. § 41(8). Jurisdiction under this provision of the Judicial Code is independent of the amount in controversy. However, the question must arise under a federal,, and not under a state law regulating commerce. Cleveland, C. C. & St. L. v. Hirsch, 6 Cir., 1913, 204 F. 849, 854 ; Yazoo & M. V. R. Co.…