Keading v. Keading ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HILJA KEADING, et al., Case No. 23-cv-03036-JSC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 9 v. STATE COURT 10 KENTON KEADING, Re: Dkt. No. 12 11 Defendant. 12 13 Defendant Kenton Keating removed this family-trust probate proceeding from Contra 14 Costa County Superior Court, seeking to vacate a state trial court judgment against him. (Dkt. No. 15 1 at 1-4.)1 Magistrate Judge Beeler issued an order to show cause for lack of subject-matter 16 jurisdiction in response to Defendant’s notice of removal. (Dkt. No. 12.) The matter is now 17 before this Court to determine whether Defendant has established federal subject-matter 18 jurisdiction. 19 BACKGROUND 20 A. Complaint Allegations 21 In Contra Costa County Superior Court’s probate division, Plaintiff Hilja Keating filed an 22 Ex Parte Petition to challenge Defendant’s administration of the Keating Family Trust and its 23 Subtrusts. (Dkt. No. 1 at 45-63.) The petition also alleged Defendant’s intentional interference 24 with her expected inheritance, fraud, conversion, and elder abuse, in connection with his behavior 25 as trustee. (Id. at 46-48.) Plaintiff’s petition did not allege any cause of action implicating federal 26 27 1 law. (Id. at 46-63.) The state trial court found for Plaintiff and ordered Defendant pay damages to 2 the trust. (Dkt. No. 1 at 24-38). 3 Defendant filed a motion to vacate in state court, seeking relief based on alleged violations 4 of the “Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal 5 Protection Clause.” (Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3.) He also claims these violations affect a second party, 6 Earth Island Institute (“EII”), whom the state court refused to join as a defendant in its 7 proceedings. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-2; Dkt. No. 12 at 1-2.) These alleged violations serve as the basis 8 for federal jurisdiction in Defendant’s notice of removal. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1-3.) 9 B. Procedural Background 10 Plaintiff filed her Ex Parte Petition in state probate court on March 15, 2016. (Dkt. No. 1 11 at 46.) The state court held a trial on the issues of elder abuse and breach of fiduciary duty. (Dkt. 12 No. 1 at 2.) The state trial court found Defendant guilty of both allegations and ordered him to 13 pay damages to the trust. (Dkt. No. 1 at 30-38.) Defendant appealed this decision, arguing the 14 trial court violated his constitutional rights. Keading v. Keading, 275 Cal. Rptr. 3d 338, 349 15 (2021), reh'g denied (Mar. 9, 2021), review denied (June 9, 2021) (discussion of Defendant’s 16 constitutionality claims is “not certified for publication”). A California appellate court affirmed 17 the judgment, and the California Supreme Court denied his petition for review. Id. 18 LEGAL STANDARD 19 Federal courts have an independent duty to ascertain jurisdiction and may remand a case 20 sua sponte for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 21 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal 22 jurisdiction. Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 847 (9th Cir. 2020). As courts of 23 limited jurisdiction, federal district courts construe the removal statute strictly and reject 24 jurisdiction if there is any doubt as to removability. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 25 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). 26 DISCUSSION 27 Defendant asserts federal question federal subject-matter. Because Defendant fails to 1 be remanded. Further, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine also defeats subject matter jurisdiction and 2 requires remand because Defendant challenges a final state court judgment. 3 I. Federal Question Jurisdiction Does not Exist 4 A district court has original jurisdiction over cases where a “federal question” is present, 5 which occurs if a plaintiff’s original cause of action arises under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6 Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “an action ‘aris[es] under’ federal law ‘only when a 7 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Hansen v. 8 Grp. Health Coop., 902 F.3d 1051, 1057 (9th Cir. 2018) (citations omitted). Plaintiff’s state court 9 Ex Parte Petition does not allege a federal claim on its face. Instead, the Petition requests the state 10 probate court suspend and remove Defendant as the family trust’s trustee and find Defendant 11 liable for damages “according to proof for breach of fiduciary duty, physical and financial elder 12 abuse, fraud, conversion, intentional interference with expected inheritance, and wrongfully 13 withholding Trust property.” (Dkt. 1 at 62.) Accordingly, the Petition only makes California state 14 law claims. So, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, the initial pleading does not establish 15 federal question jurisdiction. 16 Defendant’s motion to vacate the judgment based on an alleged violation of his federal 17 constitutional rights does not support federal question removal jurisdiction. Federal question 18 jurisdiction is not established by a defendant’s anticipated federal defense to a state law cause of 19 action. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1371 (9th Cir. 1987) (federal 20 “jurisdiction is lacking even if a defense is alleged to be based exclusively on federal law”). 21 While such assertions may suggest a federal question could be raised during litigation, they do not 22 establish the plaintiff’s original cause of action arises under the Constitution. In re Border 23 Infrastructure Env't Litig., 915 F.3d 1213, 1222 (9th Cir. 2019). So, as there is no federal question 24 jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to state court. 25 II. The Rooker-Feldman Doctrine Defeats Jurisdiction 26 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction for a second reason: Defendant’s motion to 27 vacate the state court judgment, on which removal is premised, is a challenge of a final state court 1 “Jurisdiction to hear a de facto appeal” of a final state court judgment. Carmona v. Carmona, 603 2 |} F.3d 1041, 1050 (9th Cir. 2010). A suit brought in federal district court is a “de facto” appeal 3 when a party contends a state court’s decision was erroneous and, as a result, seeks federal relief 4 || from the state court judgment. Kougasian v. TMSL, Inc., 359 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th Cir. 2004). 5 Accordingly, a defendant’s removal is improper if it is “based on defendant’s objections to 6 || the state courts’ rulings and hearings.” U.S. Bank Nat. Ass’n v. Veincentotzs, No. CV 13-2103- 7 FMO-SHX, 2013 WL 1431671, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 8, 2013). Defendant’s removal is based 8 || solely on his desire to vacate the state trial court’s decision, as he alleges only: 9 Defendant(s), including Earth Island Institute (“Ell”), a ‘stranger’ to 10 the action which joined the Motion to Vacate the Judgment as void was deprived of the right to be noticed of a pending hearing affecting 11 property rights, and the Defendants were deprived of the right to be heard at hearings which are deemed mandatory according to statutory 12 procedure. Failing procedural Due Process, the trial court lacked both subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and exceeded 13 its jurisdiction causing the judgment to be void. v 14 || (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) As Defendant’s removal is based upon a challenge to a final state court decision O 15 affirmed on appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case under the Rooker-Feldman 16 || doctrine. For this additional reason the case must be remanded. CONCLUSION Z 18 For the reasons stated above, this matter is REMANDED to the Contra Costa County 19 Superior Court. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 Dated: September 22, 2023 22 JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL United States District Judge 25 26 27 28