FILED

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

2 AUG 26 2020 3 4 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 BY: sdDEPUTY 6 JS-6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || FARIBA KERMANSHAHI, Case No. CV 20-07303 FMO (RAOx) 12 Petitioner, 13 ORDER REMANDING ACTION

AND DENYING REQUEST TO

14 |} MICHAEL JAME ADDINEH, PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Respondent. 16 V7 18 I. 19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 70 Petitioner Fariba Kermanshahi (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition for Dissolution of >] Marriage in Los Angeles County Superior Court on August 16, 2017. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Petition (“Pet.”), Dkt. No. 1. Petitioner requests 73 dissolution of her marriage with Respondent Michael Jame Addineh (“Respondent”). Pet. at 1. Respondent filed a Notice of Removal on August 12, 2020 invoking this 95 Court’s jurisdiction. Removal at 1-9; see Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. Respondent also filed a 76 || Tequest to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. Respondent previously filed a notice of removal of the superior court dissolution proceedings on February 13, 2020. See Kermanshahi v. Adineh, CV 20-

1 || 1466-FMO (RAOx), Dkt. No 1. On February 24, 2020, the Court found no basis for 2 || removal and remanded the case to the superior court. For the following reasons, the 3 || Court concludes that the instant case must likewise be remanded. 4 Il. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 7 || jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 8 || Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 9 |} 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 10 || jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 11 || Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 12 || obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 13 || F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 14 || to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 15 || when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.” (citations omitted)). A 16 || defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden 17 || of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 18 || 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus 19 || v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Respondent asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 21 || Articles I and III of the U.S. Constitution. Removal at 5. Specifically, Respondent 22 || asserts jurisdiction under Article II, section 2. /d. Article I of the U.S. Constitution 23 || establishes and sets forth the powers of Congress. Article III, section 2 provides, in 24 || relevant part, that the judicial power extends to certain cases, including inter alia, all 25 || cases arising under the treaties, laws, and Constitution of the United States, and cases 26 || between citizens of different states. a7 Additionally, Respondent asserts that venue is proper in the Central District of 28 || California due to various constitutional violations, including a violation of Article 1,

1 || section 4, and violations of the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments. Removal at 2- 2 || 3,5. Respondent asserts that this Court is the “the proper venue due to violations of 3 || Plaintiff's due process, and his right[|s to challenge the jurisdiction of the STATE 4 || under his private ecclesiastical rights to protection over the article 1 under the Ist and 5 || 5 Amendments of the United States Constitution.” Jd. at 2. He further asserts that 6 || the dissolution petition “would be an infringing upon constitutionally protected rights 7 || 1n violation of the fourth and fifth amendments.” /d. at 5. 8 Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is established by either 28 U.S.C. 9} §§ 1331 or 1332. See Blondeel-Timmerman v. Sunset Bronson Servs., LLC, No. CV 10 || 18-9504 PSG (JEMx), 2018 WL 7395156, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 13, 2018). Section 11 || 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 12 || actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Section 13 |} 1332 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 14 || actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and is 15 || between “citizens of different States.” A defendant may remove to federal court a 16 || state court civil action when the federal court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. 17 |] § 1441(a). 18 The Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached state court 19 || documents makes it clear that this Court does not have jurisdiction over the instant 20 || matter. First, there does not appear to be subject matter jurisdiction over the instant 21 || matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Respondent appears to allege that federal 22 || question jurisdiction exists as a result of several constitutional violations related to 23 || the state court proceeding. Specifically, Respondent appears to contend that the 24 || Petition would violate his “private ecclesiastical rights” guaranteed by the First 25 || Amendment, his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, and his right to be 26 || secure in his “papers” under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. Removal at 2-3, 5- 27 || 6. He also appears to allege that this Court has jurisdiction by virtue of Petitioner’s 28 || “perjury” in the state court proceedings. Removal at 1-3, 5.

1 Respondent’s arguments disregard the long-established well-pleaded 2 |} complaint rule. The well-pleaded complaint rule “provides that federal jurisdiction 3 || exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly 4 || pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 5 || 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). The Court’s review of the Petition shows that there is 6 || no federal question apparent from the face of the Petition, which appears to be solely 7 || a petition for dissolution of marriage. Because Plaintiff's Petition does not present a 8 || federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction 9 || under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. 10 Second, Respondent has not adequately met his burden in proving diversity 11 || jurisdiction should apply. Section 1332(a) provides, in relevant part, that federal 12 || “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 13 || controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and 14 || is between . .. citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Respondent appears 15 || to assert that diversity of citizenship exists because Petitioner and Respondent, as 16 || well as unnamed other parties, are dual citizens of the United States and Iran. See 17 || Removal at 6-7. Respondent, however, identifies himself as a citizen of California 18 || but fails to identify the state citizenship of Petitioner. He alleges that 19 || “Defendants/Petitioner and her agents as officer[]s of the Court may hold LLP are 20 || incorporated in a state other than California its principal places of business are 21 || unknown. Defendants may have several affiliates as LLC/ LLP and as corporation 22 || and medical Doctors and ethnical business that hold dual citizenship and doing 23 || business in both places.” (Removal at 7.) To the extent it is intelligible, 24 || Respondent’s speculative assertion that Petitioner and unspecified others may have 25 || citizenship elsewhere is plainly insufficient to establish diversity of citizenship. See 26 || also Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 858 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[F]ailure to 27 || specify [party’s] state citizenship was fatal to . . . assertion of diversity jurisdiction.”) 28

1 Similarly, Respondent has not asserted that the amount in controversy exceeds 2 || the sum or value of $75,000. See Removal at 1-8. The Petition places at issue debts 3 || and assets, including “700 full Bahar Azadi gold coins” and money from a bank 4 || account. Pet. at 1, 3. However, the Petition does not provide an amount in 5 || controversy, placing the burden on Respondent to “actually prov[e]” that the amount 6 || in controversy is satisfied. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. Respondent has offered 7 || no facts showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Removal at 8 || 1-8. 9 Moreover, even if Respondent had made an adequate showing that the amount 10 || in controversy exceeds $75,000, the Court would still lack jurisdiction pursuant to 11 || the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. The domestic relations 12 || exception “divests the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child 13 || custody decrees.” Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 693-95, 112 S. Ct. 2206, 14 || 119 L. Ed. 2d 468 (1992). The underlying case here is a petition for dissolution of 15 || marriage, which appears to fall squarely within the domestic relations exception for 16 || suits requesting issuance of divorce decrees. Harper v. Farkas, No. CV 18-10436 17 || DDP (AGR), 2019 WL 95132, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (“Diversity suits for 18 |} divorce, alimony or child custody decrees fall outside federal jurisdiction.”). 19 Finally, the Court finds that removal is untimely. Under 28 U.S.C. 20 || § 1446(b)(1), “[t]he notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed 21 || within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a 22 || copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such action 23 || or proceeding is based.” Here, Respondent does not allege that removal is timely. 24 |} See Removal at 1-8. The Petition was filed more than three years ago on August 16, 25 || 2017. See Pet. at 1. The Court takes judicial notice of Petitioner’s filing of a proof 26 || of service on August 30, 2017 and Respondent’s Response filed on September 18, 27 28

1 || 2017.! See Rosales-Martinez v. Palmer, 753 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2014) (“It is 2 || well established that [courts] may take judicial notice of judicial proceedings in other 3 || courts.”). Accordingly, Respondent’s Notice of Removal is untimely. See Deutsche 4 || Bank Nat. Tr. Co. v. Hixon, No. CV 10-06491 DMG, 2010 WL 3911554, at *1 (C.D. 5 || Cal. Oct. 5, 2010) (finding defendant’s filing of a demurrer to the complaint meant 6 || that defendant had received a copy of the complaint). Thus, the Court lacks 7 || jurisdiction. 8 For all the reasons set forth above, Respondent has not met his burden of 9 || proving that removal is proper. 10 1] CONCLUSION 12 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 13 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 14 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent’s request to proceed in forma 15 || pauperis is DENIED as moot. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. V7 18 || DATED: August 26, 2020 19 SA

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN

20 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 || Presented by: Repedla Or, Q2~ | ROZELLAA. OLIVER. SSS 24 || UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26 57 || | Case Information for Case No. 17STFL03457, Superior Court of County of Los Angeles, http://www.lacourt.org/casesummary/ui/index.aspx?casetype=civil, then 28 || search 17STFL03457.