Case 8:22-cv-00691-CJC-KES Document 12 Filed 04/18/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:142

1 JS-6 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 REMANDING CASE TO 13 ) ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR Plaintiffs, ) COURT 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

, 1446. Defendant’s

24 NOR also failed to include any descriptions of Plaintiffs’ the claims Plaintiffs made

25 against Defendant. Subsequently, this Court issued an Order to Show Cause as to why

26 the case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Dkt. 9.) The

27 Court explained that the failure to describe Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant presented

28 a significant problem because the United States Supreme Court “has long held that a

-1- Case 8:22-cv-00691-CJC-KES Document 12 Filed 04/18/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:143

1 district court, when determining whether it has original jurisdiction over a civil action, 2 should evaluate whether that action could have been brought originally in federal court.” 3 Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson,

(2019). “This requires a 4 district court to evaluate whether the plaintiff could have filed its operative complaint in 5 federal court[.]”

(emphases added). 6 Despite being given the direction and opportunity to do so, , Defendant has failed 7 to cure the jurisdictional problems with his NOR. In his 94-page response to the Court’s 8 Order to Show Cause, Defendant again fails to attach the state court complaint and fails 9 to explain how there is federal question jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction over the 10 action. (Dkt. 11 [Defendant’s Response to the Order to Show Cause].) Instead, 11 Defendant appears to double down on his improper argument that there is subject matter 12 jurisdiction because of the apparent counterclaims he presents against Plaintiffs. (Id. at 13 70–80.) To support this proposition, Defendant attaches a document that appears to be a 14 counterclaim against Plaintiffs, alleging violations of

(Foreign Agent 15 Registration Act of 1938),

(Debt Collection Practices Act),

1962 (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act), and

(Mail 17 Fraud). (Id. at 7–8, 9.) Defendant also alleges a claim for “legal prejudice,” a claim for 18 “failure to establish agency,” and a claim for “the right to contract.” (Id. at 7–8.) Again, 19 Defendant’s counterclaims against Plaintiffs are not enough to invoke this Court’s subject 20 matter jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, Inc. v . Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 21

(2002) (The general remov al statute does not permit removal based on 22 counterclaims.). 23

24 // 25 // 26 // 27 // 28 //

-2- ase 8:22-cv-00691-CJC-KES Document Filed 04/18/22 Page3of3 Page ID#:144

1 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to Orange County Superior Court for 2 || lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 4 DATED: April 18, 2022 Ko : je 5 fi ae 6 CORMAC J. CARNEY 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

3.