Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 1 of 9 Page ID #:418

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 H inU diA viL dU uaN ls ;W HA UN AG L Uan Nd WHU AA N GSU aN s ,

C ase No. 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM 12 Successor in Interest to the survival action ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION TO REMAND [ECF NO. 20]

13 of Peng Wang (decedent), Plaintiffs, 14 v.

15 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA; TING SU; BINGLIANG

16 LI; and DOES 1-25, INCLUSIVE, 17 Defendants. 18 19 20 Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion to remand to the Superior Court of California 21 for the County of Los Angeles on the basis that Defendants have not established federal 22 enclave jurisdiction. (ECF No. 20). Defendants oppose. (ECF No. 24-1). The Court has 23 read and considered the matters raised with respect to the motion and determined that this 24 matter is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 25 7-15. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. 26 27 28 -1- Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 2 of 9 Page ID #:419

1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case stems from the death of Peng “Aaron” Wang while filming a University 3 of Southern California (“USC”) student film at the Imperial Sand Dunes Recreation Area 4 (“Imperial Dunes”). Plaintiffs Hualun Wang, individually and as successor in interest to 5 Aaron Wang, and Hua Sun (“Plaintiffs”) commenced this case in the Superior Court of 6 California, County of Los Angeles. (ECF No. 1-2). Plaintiffs brought state law claims 7 against USC for its failure to properly supervise the incident and against USC students Su 8 and Li for their role in Aaron’s death. (Id.). The parties agree that the entire incident 9 occurred at the Imperial Dunes. 10 On October 21, 2022, USC removed this action on the basis that the Imperial Dunes 11 is a federal enclave pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 1 (“NOR”)). Defendants Su 12 and Li filed joinders to the NOR. (ECF Nos. 13, 16). On November 21, 2022, Plaintiffs 13 timely filed the instant motion to remand. (ECF No. 20 (“Mot.”)). USC opposed on 14 January 18, 2023, (ECF No. 24-1 (“Opp.”)), and Plaintiffs replied on January 25, 2023. 15 (ECF No. 25 (“Reply”)). 16 II. LEGAL STANDARD 17 To remove a case from a state court to a federal court, a defendant must file a notice 18 of removal “containing a short and plain statement of the grounds for removal.” 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1446(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 20 jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 21 A district court has federal question jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the 22 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. § 1331. 23 The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing that federal 24 subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 25 Cir. 1988). “The removal statute is strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of 26 removal requires resolution in favor of remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 27 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). There is a strong presumption against removal 28 jurisdiction, and federal jurisdiction “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right -2- Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 3 of 9 Page ID #:420

1 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 2 (citation omitted). 3 III. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 4 A court may take judicial notice of facts not subject to reasonable dispute in that 5 they are generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the court or they are capable 6 of ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be 7 questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). A court may take judicial notice of court filings and 8 other matters of public record. See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 9 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Auth. v. City of 10 Burbank, 136 F.3d 1360, 1364 (9th Cir. 1998)). This includes records and documents 11 available from “reliable sources on the internet.” Gerritsen v. Warner Bros. Ent., Inc., 112 12 F.Supp.3d 1011, 1033 (C.D. Cal. 2015). A court may also judicially notice information 13 and documents that are “made publicly available by government entities [ ], and neither 14 party disputes the authenticity of the websites or the accuracy of the information displayed 15 therein.” Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2010). 16 In support of their opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion, Defendants request the Court 17 take judicial notice of certain facts and documents establishing that the Imperial Dunes is 18 federal land owned and managed by the federal government. (ECF No. 24 (“RJN”)). 19 Plaintiffs largely oppose Defendant’s RJN. (ECF No. 26). Because the Court finds the 20 facts and documents Defendants request it take judicial notice of are not necessary to the 21 decision on this motion, it denies the requests for judicial notice. See Great Basin Mine 22 Watch v. Hankins, 456 F.3d 955, 976 (9th Cir. 2006) (district court may deny judicial notice 23 of documents it does not rely upon and which are not pertinent or necessary to its ruling on 24 motion to dismiss). 25 IV. DISCUSSION 26 For there to be federal question jurisdiction over this dispute, Defendants bear the 27 burden of demonstrating either (1) that the Imperial Dunes is a federal enclave subject to 28 exclusive federal jurisdiction or (2) Plaintiffs’ state law claims raise a substantial federal -3- Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 4 of 9 Page ID #:421

1 interest. See Lake v. Ohana Mil. Communities, LLC, 14 F.4th 993, 1003 (9th Cir. 2021); 2 Allstate Ins. Co. v. S. Cal. Edison Co., No. CV 21-4994 MWF, 2021 WL 5356633, at *3 3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2021). The Court addresses each in turn. 4 A. Federal Enclave Jurisdiction 5 “Federal enclave jurisdiction refers to the principle that federal law applies in federal 6 enclaves.” City & Cnty. of Honolulu v. Sunoco LP, 39 F.4th 1101, 1111 (9th Cir. 2022) 7 (citing U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 17 (the “Enclave Clause”)). “Land is a federal enclave 8 when the United States acquires it by purchase or condemnation for any of the purposes 9 mentioned in Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution, within the borders of 10 a State.” Beltran v. Inter-Con Sec. Sys., Inc., No. 2:21-cv-04927-VAP-(AFMx), 2021 WL 11 4170128, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2021) (citing Paul v. United States, 371 U.S. 245, 264 12 (1963)). The Enclave Clause’s purpose is to emphasize the “obvious” “necessity” of the 13 federal government’s “complete jurisdiction” over certain areas of land within a state. Ft. 14 Leavenworth R. Co. v. Lowe, 114 U.S. 525, 528–29 (1885). The Ninth Circuit has 15 instructed courts to “invoke the doctrine of federal enclave jurisdiction narrowly.” City & 16 Cnty. of Honolulu, 39 F.4th at 1111 (citing Cnty. of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 17 733, 749-50 (9th Cir. 2022)) 18 Generally, when the federal government acquires state land, that land becomes a 19 federal enclave governed by federal law. Id. “This means a federal court may have federal 20 question jurisdiction based on injuries arising from conduct on the enclave.” Id. The Ninth 21 Circuit has recently clarified that federal question jurisdiction arises only in federal 22 enclaves which the United States has retained exclusive federal jurisdiction, but not in 23 enclaves in which Congress has permitted concurrent jurisdiction. Lake v. Ohana Mil. 24 Communities, LLC, 14 F.4th 993, 1003 (9th Cir. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 2815 25 (2022). “Exclusive jurisdiction can be acquired by the United States over land within a 26 state in three ways: (1) by purchase or donation of property with the consent of the state as 27 provided in the United States Constitution; (2) by a reservation of jurisdiction by the United 28 States upon the admission of the state into the union; and (3) the state’s cession, together -4- Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 5 of 9 Page ID #:422

1 with the United States acceptance, of such jurisdiction.” Coso Energy Devs. v. Cnty. of 2 Inyo, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1512, 1520 (2004) (internal citations omitted). “A federal enclave 3 is governed exclusively by federal law unless otherwise provided.” Franklin v. Pacificorp, 4 No. 2:22-cv-00465-MCE-CKD, 2022 WL 2303974, at *3 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 2022) 5 (quoting Hillman v. Leixcon Consulting, Inc., No. LA-16-CV-001186, 2016 WL 6 10988766, at *4 (C.D. Cal. 2016)). 7 B. The Imperial Dunes is not Subject to Exclusive Federal Jurisdiction 8 To determine whether the United States has retained exclusive jurisdiction over the 9 Imperial Dunes, the Court begins with the history of the land. In 1848, the United States 10 acquired the land encompassing the Imperial Dunes pursuant to the Treaty of Guadalupe 11 Hidalgo. See Franklin, 2022 WL 2303974, at *3; Thompson v. Doaksum, 68 Cal. 593, 596 12 (1886) (“The lands within the territorial limits of the state of California were ceded to our 13 general government by the republic of Mexico under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 14 February 2, 1848.”). “From 1848 until California’s admission to the Union, the United 15 States ‘possessed the rights of a proprietor and had political dominion and sovereignty’ 16 over the land.” Hillman, 2016 WL 10988766, at *3 (citing Ft. Leavenworth, 114 U.S. at 17 526). In 1850, the United States admitted California to the union. See Act for the 18 Admission of the State of California into the Union, 9 Stat. 452 (Sept. 9, 1850) (the “Act”). 19 Defendants contend that the United States has retained ownership of California’s public 20 lands upon California’s admission into the union pursuant to the Act.1 (Opp. at 4; RJN 21 ¶¶ 1, 2). Even if so, multiple courts within the Ninth Circuit have held that, “[i]n 1850, 22 when the United States admitted California to the Union, it did not reserve exclusive 23 jurisdiction over federal lands within California.” Hillman, 2016 WL 10988766, at *3 24 (citing the Act); see also, e.g., Franklin, 2022 WL 2303974, at *4 (holding the United 25 States did not reserve exclusive jurisdiction to itself under the Act); Graupner v. Lewis Ltd. 26 Consultants, LLC., No. ED CV 12-1388-JFW (OPx), 2012 WL 12895714, at *2 (C.D. Cal. 27 28 1 Defendants appear to erroneously conflate federal ownership of State land with exclusive federal jurisdiction over that land. -5- Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 6 of 9 Page ID #:423

1 Oct. 26, 2012) (“when the United States admitted California into the Union, it did not 2 reserve exclusive jurisdiction over the federal lands within the state, and therefore retained 3 only the rights of an ordinary proprietor”). Thus, whether the United States retained 4 ownership of the Imperial Dunes since 1850 does not establish that the land is subject to 5 exclusive federal jurisdiction. And because the Act did not reserve exclusive jurisdiction, 6 the only means by which the Imperial Dunes may qualify as a federal enclave would be 7 California’s “cession, together with the United States acceptance, of such jurisdiction.” 8 Coso Energy, 122 Cal. App. 4th at 1520.2 9 Defendants argue that Congress’ creation of the California Desert Conservation Area 10 (“CDCA”) was intended to assert “exclusive jurisdiction and control” over the Imperial 11 Dunes. (Opp. at 4-5 (citing 43 U.S.C. § 1781)). Specifically, Defendants point to § 1781 12 subsection (h) to argue that the federal government placed the CDCA, which encompasses 13 the Imperial Dunes, under exclusive federal jurisdiction. (Id.). That section provides that 14 the Secretaries of Agriculture and Defense “shall manage lands within their respective 15 jurisdictions located in or adjacent to the California Desert Conservation Area.” 43 U.S.C. 16 § 1781(h). Contrary to Defendants’ assertion, Congress’ enactment of § 1781 does not 17 show that California has somehow “ceded or consented to jurisdiction of the federal 18 government” over the Imperial Dunes, or that the federal government has accepted 19 jurisdiction and exercised its control over the land. (Opp. at 5). Instead, § 1781 simply 20 instructs the Secretaries of Agriculture and Defense to manage lands within their already- 21 established jurisdictions in the CDCA. Moreover, as Plaintiffs point out, Defendants do 22 not cite any state session statute, purchase documents, or other competent evidence that 23 California has ceded the Imperial Dunes to the United States. Cf. Perez v. DNC Parks & 24 Resorts at Asilomar, Inc., No. 1:19-cv-00484-DAD-SAB, 2019 WL 5618169, at *5 (E.D. 25 Cal. Oct. 31, 2019) (finding that Kings Canyon National Park was subject to exclusive 26

27 2 Defendants do not argue that the first method of acquiring exclusive jurisdiction—by 28 purchase or donation of property with the consent of the state as provided in the United States Constitution—has occurred. -6- Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 7 of 9 Page ID #:424

1 federal jurisdiction as a federal enclave based on California’s passing 1943 Cal. Stat. 801, 2 which provides that exclusive jurisdiction shall be ceded to the United States over and 3 within all of the territory set aside and dedicated for park purposes by the United States as 4 ‘Kings Canyon National Park.’ (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted)). Thus, 5 the Court cannot construe § 1781 as accepting federal jurisdiction over the CDCA absent 6 evidence that California ever ceded that land in the first place. Accordingly, the Court 7 rejects Defendants’ argument that Congress asserted exclusive federal jurisdiction over the 8 Imperial Dunes or surrounding CDCA through its enactment of § 1781. 9 Alternatively, Defendants argue that even if the CDCA does not establish the 10 Imperial Dunes as a federal enclave subject to exclusive federal jurisdiction, federal 11 question jurisdiction exists nevertheless because the federal government has “partial 12 legislative jurisdiction” over the Imperial Dunes based on California’s cessation statute 13 enacted in 1891. (Opp. at 6 (citing Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 181, 1891, Cal. Stat. 262 (the 14 “1891 Statute”))).3 Defendants are correct that a federal enclave may be subject to 15 concurrent state jurisdiction rather than exclusive federal jurisdiction. Lake, 14 F.4th at 16 1003; City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 39 F.4th at 1111 (citing Lake). However, the Ninth 17 Circuit’s recent decision in Lake conclusively holds that federal question jurisdiction under 18 28 U.S.C. § 1331 arises only in enclaves with exclusive federal jurisdiction. See Lake, 14 19 F.4th at 1003 (“We have only found federal question jurisdiction in enclaves in which 20 Congress has not permitted concurrent jurisdiction, and we have not extended that rule to 21 federal land that is subject to broad state concurrent jurisdiction.”); Allstate, 2021 WL 22 5356633, at *5 (observing that the Lake court “overturned a grant of federal enclave 23 jurisdiction and explained that federal enclave precedent is limited to situations where the 24 United States has exclusive jurisdiction – not concurrent jurisdiction”). Therefore, 25 26 3 The parties do not dispute that the 1891 Statute did not transfer exclusive jurisdiction to the United States. Accord Coso Energy Devs. v. Cnty. of Inyo, 122 Cal. App. 4th 1512, 27 1520 (2004); Franklin, 2022 WL 2303974, at *4; Hillman, 2016 WL 10988766, at *4; 28 Graupner, 2012 WL 12895714, at *2 n.3. -7- Case 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page 8 of 9 Page ID #:425

1 Defendants are incorrect that federal question jurisdiction exists over Plaintiffs’ state law 2 claims due to California’s “partial legislative jurisdiction” over the Imperial Dunes. And 3 because federal question jurisdiction arises only where the federal government retains 4 exclusive jurisdiction—not concurrent—over a federal enclave, neither the CDCA nor the 5 1891 Statute can support Defendants’ removal in this case. See Lake, 14 F.4th at 1003. 6 Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have not met their burden to establish federal 7 question subject matter jurisdiction on that basis. 8 C. Whether a Substantial Federal Interest Exists 9 Given that Lake forecloses exercising federal question jurisdiction over a non- 10 exclusive federal enclave, for the Court to determine whether it has jurisdiction over 11 Plaintiffs’ state law claims it must analyze the requirements as set forth by the Supreme 12 Court in Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). See Allstate, 2021 WL 5356633, at 13 *6. In Gunn, the Supreme Court held that a “special and small category” of state law cases 14 may be brought in federal court so long as certain requirements are met. Gunn, 568 U.S. 15 at 257-58. Those requirements are that a “a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, 16 (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without 17 disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Lake, 14 F.4th at 1007 (citing 18 Gunn, 568 U.S. at 258). 19 Here, Defendants have failed to address any of the Gunn factors. Instead, 20 Defendants assert that, “[b]ecause Plaintiffs’ claims are based on alleged acts that occurred 21 on a federal enclave and because the federal government has a substantial interest in that 22 enclave and the claims arising on it, this Court has jurisdiction to hear this controversy 23 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1331.” (Opp. at 8). However, the fact that the incident 24 underlying this dispute occurred in the Imperial Dunes within the CDCA, without more, 25 does not necessarily raise a federal question. Further, Defendants fail to explain how the 26 issue underlying Plaintiffs’ negligence-based claims against USC in a suit where the United 27 States is not a party creates a federal interest that is “substantial.” “To meet their burden 28 for substantiality, Defendants must show that the issue is important to the federal system -8- se 2:22-cv-07710-SPG-AFM Document 28 Filed 02/09/23 Page9of9 Page ID #:426

1 |Jas a whole.” Allstate, 2021 WL 5356633, at *6 (citing Gunn, 568 U.S. at 260). This, 2 ||Defendants have not shown. Accordingly, the Court finds that Defendants have not 3 || satisfied the Gunn requirements, as is their burden as the removing party. Emrich, 846 4 || F.2d at 1195. 5 ||}V. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand. 8 || IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 |}DATED: February 9, 2023 11

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9.