Charles J. Jones v. Melissa Gilliland Jones

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. LA CV19-07251 JAK (AFMx) Date September 30, 2020

Title Charles J. Jones v. Melissa Gilliland Jones, et al.

Present: The Honorable JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Patricia Blunt Not Reported

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present Not Present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE SUBJECT MATTER

JURISDICTION

Charles Jones (“Plaintiff”) brought this action on August 11, 2019, advancing 11 causes of action

against four named defendants. Dkt. 1. Plaintiff has amended his complaint twice, and the operative

complaint (the “SAC”) now advances only a single cause of action for declaratory relief under the

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, and names only one defendant, Melissa Gilliland (Jones)

(“Defendant”). See generally Dkt. 75. The SAC seeks a declaration that a Decree of Divorce issued by

the Chancery Court for Wilson County, Tennessee (the “Divorce Decree”), is void. /d. 46-62. The

SAC also seeks injunctive relief against any enforcement of the Divorce Decree, nominal damages of

$50,000, compensatory damages of $500,000, punitive damages of $1,000,000, and attorney's fees

and costs. /d. at 12-13.

On June 15, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”). Dkt. 76. Plaintiff opposed the

Motion (the “Opposition”). Dkt. 77. Defendant replied (the “Reply”). Dkt. 79. In support of the Motion,

Defendant asserts, inter alia, that the Court should decline to exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory

Judgment Act. However, it does not address whether there is subject matter jurisdiction over this

action.

A federal district court is one of limited jurisdiction. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511

U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Therefore, a determination of subject matter jurisdiction must be made before the

merits of a case can be addressed. Sifee/ Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t., 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). The

Declaratory Judgment Act does not itself confer federal subject matter jurisdiction. Fidelity & Cas. Co. v.

Reserve Ins. Co., 596 F.2d 914, 916 (9th Cir. 1979); Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Liberatore, 408 F.3d

1158, 1161 (9th Cir. 2005). Thus, Plaintiff is required to plead an independent basis for federal

jurisdiction. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., 408 F.3d at 1161. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over

“all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

For a case to ‘arise under’ federal law, a plaintiffs well-pleaded complaint

must establish either (1) that federal law creates the cause of action or (2)

that the plaintiffs asserted right to relief depends on the resolution of a

substantial question of federal law. Federal jurisdiction cannot hinge upon

defenses or counterclaims, whether actual or anticipated.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. LA CV19-07251 JAK (AFMx) Date September 30, 2020

Title Charles J. Jones v. Melissa Gilliland Jones, et al.

K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011). Federal courts also have

original jurisdiction over civil actions in which there is “diversity of citizenship.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Diversity jurisdiction exists only where a civil action is between citizens of different states, and the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. /d. Complete diversity of citizenship is required: “the

citizenship of each plaintiff [must be] different from that of each defendant.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA,

582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009).

The SAC alleges jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, but its factual allegations do not

expressly state a claim under federal law or depend on the resolution of a substantial question of

federal law. The allegations as to federal law are limited to the conclusory statement that enforcement

of the Divorce Decree violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Dkt. 75 J 58. However, the SAC does not

allege any facts that support this statement.

Plaintiff also alleges diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, diversity jurisdiction does

not apply to a case whose principal issue concerns domestic relations. See Atwood v. Fort Peck Tribal

Court Assiniboine, 513 F.3d 943, 947 (9th Cir. 2008). f[T]he domestic relations of husband and wife,

parent and child, belongs to the laws of the States and not to the laws of the United States.” Harper v.

Farkas, No. CV 18-10436 DDP (AGRx), 2019 WL 95132, at *6 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2019) (quoting

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992)). “Diversity suits for divorce, alimony or child

custody decrees fall outside federal jurisdiction.” /d. Because this action seeks to declare the Divorce

Decree void, it falls within the domestic relations exception to diversity jurisdiction. “Although the

[domestic relations] exception is narrow, it is clearly applicable where . . . a party seeks modification of

a divorce decree.” Brown v. D.C., 113 F.3d 1245 (10th Cir. 1997) (affirming district court’s sua sponte

dismissal of an action that sought a declaration, pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, that a

divorce decree was void). In addition, although the sole cause of action is for declaratory relief, the

prayer for relief seeks $50,000 in nominal damages, $500,000 in compensatory damages and

$1,000,000 in punitive damages. Dkt. 75 at 12-13. The SAC does not explain or allege a basis for these

claims.

Finally, the Supreme Court has held that district courts do not have jurisdiction “over challenges to state

court decisions in particular cases arising out of judicial proceedings even if those challenges allege

that the state court's action was unconstitutional.” D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 486

(1983). Federal review of such decisions may be undertaken only by the Supreme Court pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1257. D.C. Court of Appeals, 460 U.S. at 496.

As noted, the party seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing it.

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. For the reasons stated, the SAC fails to meet these standards as currently

presented. Accordingly, this Order to Show Cause re Subject Matter Jurisdiction is issued. On or before

October 5, 2020, each party shall submit a brief, not to exceed seven pages, that addresses whether

there is subject maiter jurisdiction over this action. Upon receiving these briefs, a determination will be

made as to whether a hearing on the jurisdictional issue is necessary or if the matter will be taken

under submission. In light of this process, the hearing on the Motion is DEFERRED and the present

hearing scheduled for October 5, 2020, is taken off calendar. If it is determined that there is subject

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL

Case No. LACV19-07251 JAK (AFMx) Date September 30, 2020

Title Charles J. Jones v. Melissa Gilliland Jones, et al.

matter jurisdiction, a new hearing date will be set for the Motion, or it will be taken under submission. If

it is determined that there is not subject matter jurisdiction, this action will be dismissed and the Motion

will become moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

: 00

Initials of Preparer PB