People of the State of California v. Rish Investments, Inc.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FILED

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

MAY 16 2025 PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF No. 24-4283 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS CALIFORNIA,

D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellee, 2:24-cv-03276-CBM-MRW v.

MEMORANDUM* RISH INVESTMENTS, INC., a California corporation,

Defendant - Appellant, and GAZI MONIRUL ISLAM,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California

Consuelo B. Marshall, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 12, 2025** Pasadena, California

Before: IKUTA, R. NELSON, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Rish Investments, Inc. (Rish) appeals from the district court’s order remanding the case to state court. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). We affirm.

Rish cannot show that an exception applies to the well-pleaded complaint rule for federal question jurisdiction. See County of San Mateo v. Chevron Corp., 32 F.4th 733, 746 (9th Cir. 2022). The Grable exception does not apply, as Rish has not identified a federal issue implicating the Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (TVPA) that is necessarily raised, actually disputed and substantial, and capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005).1 Among other things, Rish does not argue that any TVPA issue in the complaint is “an essential element of” the complaint’s state law claims. Id. at 315.

Rish also cannot show that removal was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Rish has neither identified a right bestowed on it by an explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights, nor pointed to a “formal expression of state law that prohibits [it] from enforcing [its] civil rights in state court,” nor provided “anything that suggests that the state court would not enforce [its] civil rights in the state court proceedings.” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006), abrogated on other grounds by BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230 (2021).2

The district court correctly remanded the case, as it lacked jurisdiction. Therefore, we need not address the parties’ arguments regarding the timeliness of Rish’s removal, which is not a jurisdictional requirement. Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209, 1212 (9th Cir. 1980) (per curiam).

Finally, we affirm, as law of the case, the motions panel’s prior ruling denying Rish’s motion for an automatic stay pending appeal. See Hanna Boys Ctr. v. Miller, 853 F.2d 682, 685–86 (9th Cir. 1988).

AFFIRMED.3