Case 8:22-cv-00691-CJC-KES Document 9 Filed 04/06/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:45

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SOUTHERN DIVISION 10 DONALD SHERRILL, ANTHONY ) Case No.: SACV 22-00691-CJC (KESx) 11 ) DIPIERO, and HUNT AND ) 12 HENRIQUES, ) ) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 13 ) THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE Plaintiffs, ) DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT 14 ) MATTER JURISDICTION v. ) 15 ) ) 16 GEORGE EDWARD BOSTON, ) ) 17 ) Defendant. ) 18 ) ) 19 20 Defendant George Edward Boston removed this case from Orange County

21 Superior Court on March 30, 2022. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter “NOR”].) In

22 his filing, Defendant failed to attach the state court complaint upon which his notice of

23 removal (“NOR”) is based, as required under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1446. Defendant’s

24 NOR also fails to include any descriptions of Plaintiffs’ Complaint or the claims

25 Plaintiffs have made against Defendant. This presents a problem because the United

26 States Supreme Court “has long held that a district court, when determining whether it

27 has original jurisdiction over a civil action, should evaluate whether that action could

28 have been brought originally in federal court.” Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139

-1- Case 8:22-cv-00691-CJC-KES Document9 Filed 04/06/22 Page 2of2 Page ID#:46

1 || S.Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019). “This requires a district court to evaluate whether the plaintiff 2 ||could have filed its operative complaint in federal court[.]” Jd. (emphasis added). Defendant seems to be under the mistaken impression that his claims against Plaintiffs may serve as the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant states that he ° is seeking removal pursuant to Rule 11, 28 U.S.C. §455 (Foreign Agent Registration Act ° of 1938), 15 U.S.C. $1692 (Debt Collection Practices Act), 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Frauds and ' Swindles), 18 U.S.C. § 1843, and 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act).! (NOR at 1.) These statutes are apparently part of the many violations of Defendant’s “civil and constitutional protected rights” that Defendant would like vindicated. (U/d.) But Defendant’s potential counterclaims against Plaintiffs are not enough to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. © Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (The general removal © statute does not permit removal based on counterclaims at all, as a counterclaim is irrelevant to whether the district court has “original jurisdiction” over the civil action.). © Simply put, Defendant’s NOR does not contain sufficient information for the Court to . determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action.

18 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendant to show cause in writing by April 18, » 2022 why this case should not be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. Plaintiffs may, but are not required to, file a statement by the same date.

DATED: April 6, 2022 Lo fon

CORMAC J. CARKEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27 28 ||‘ It appears that there is no Section 1843 of Title 18 of the United States Code. The Court assumes that the inclusion of this non-existent statute was a typographical error. 2.