UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 21-01528-DOC-ADS Date: September 27, 2021

Title: TETRALINK2-AFC V. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

PRESENT:

THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE

Karlen Dubon Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: DEFENDANT: None Present None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT SUA SPONTE

I. Background and Procedural History This is a case challenging a juvenile dependency matter that terminated in late 2019. See generally Complaint (Dkt. 1).

On September 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed his complaint against Defendant in this Court and sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2). The Court denied the request on September 23, 2021 (Dkt. 6).

II. Legal Standard “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

(c). A federal court may order remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or any other procedural defect.

(c). CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. SA CV 21-01528-DOC-ADS Date: September 27, 2021 Page 2

If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, any action it takes is ultra vires and void. See Gonzalez v. Crosby,

(2005); Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t,

, 101–02 (1998). The lack of subject matter jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either the parties or the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). If subject matter jurisdiction is found to be lacking, the court must dismiss the action,

or remand pursuant to

(c). A court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte. See Snell v. Cleveland, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2002).

III. Discussion Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges no violation or claim under federal law. Although it is not clear precisely which law Plaintiff alleges Defendant has violated, Plaintiff sues the State of California for alleged defects in a juvenile dependency case conducted by the State. The Complaint therefore does not arise under federal law. Moreover, Plaintiff appears to reside in Huntington Beach, California. See Complaint Declaration (Dkt. 1). As Defendant is the State of California, there is no diversity of citizenship. As such, there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this case.

IV. Disposition For the reasons set forth above, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of Orange County, California.

The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.

MINUTES FORM 11 Initials of Deputy Clerk: kdu CIVIL-GEN