Mondrian v. Kaur

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 10 — 11 AUGUSTUS MONDRIAN, ) Case No.: 1:21-cv-00151 DAD JLT ) 12 Plaintiff, ) FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO ) DISMISS THE ACTION FOR LACK OF 13 v. ) JURISDICTION ) 14 PRABHJOT KAUR, ) ) 15 Defendant. ) ) — 16 — 17 The plaintiff alleges that in connection with his divorce, his ex-wife removed all of the property 18 from their apartment and took money from their joint bank accounts. (Doc. 1 at 8) He alleges that the 19 defendant made up claims of domestic violence resulting in her being granted a divorce and being 20 awarded custody of the couple’s child. Id. He alleges that after the divorce, he was left homeless and 21 penniless. Id. He seeks to be compensated for the fact that he “brought Prabjot [sic] Kaur from the 22 hellish life in India,” and, in doing so, paid for the wedding and reception in India. Id. at 8-9. The 23 plaintiff seeks to be “compensated for [the] amount for my actual lost [sic] and damages during and 24 after marriage [in the amount of] $87,970.90.” Id. at 9. Because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the 25 matter, the Court recommends the matter be dismissed. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 A. The Court cannot review the judgment of the Kern County Superior Court 2 The Kern County Superior Court issued a judgment of dissolution of the marriage of the parties 3 on February 26, 2019.1, 2 It granted the defendant’s move away request, which allowed the defendant 4 and the couple’s child to move from the jurisdiction, on April 2, 2020. Clearly, the plaintiff takes 5 exception to the superior court’s determinations about the property division, the dissolution of the 6 marriage and the child custody determination. Likewise, he seems to regret that he paid the marriage 7 ceremony and reception costs, the cost of travel for his ex-wife from India, and he regrets that he 8 financially supported his wife during the marriage while she did not work. Id. at 8. However, the proper 9 court to raise these complaints is the Family Court of the Kern County Superior Court. He cannot 10 attack that dissolution judgment in this Court. 11 Under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, a party may not seek appellate review in federal court of a 12 decision made by a state court. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of 13 Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983). The Ninth Circuit explained, 14 Typically, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal courts from exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over a proceeding in which a party losing in state court seeks what in substance 15 would be appellate review of the state judgment in a United States district court, based on the losing party's claim that the state judgment itself violates the losers’ federal rights. — 16 — 17 Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d 1038, 1041-42 (9th Cir. 2005); see also Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic 18 Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005) (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine precludes a district court from 19 appellate review of “cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court 20 judgments rendered before the district court proceeding commenced ...”). Accordingly, the district court 21 lacks jurisdiction over “claims ... ‘inextricably intertwined’ with the state court's decision such that the 22 adjudication of the federal claims would undercut the state ruling.” Bianchi v. Rylaarsdam, 334 F.3d 23 1 The Court takes juridical notice of the docket of the actions filed by the defendant against the plaintiff in the Kern County 24 Superior Court and the lawsuit filed by the County of Kern against the plaintiff for unpaid child support. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). The record of state court proceedings is a source 25 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, and the Court may take judicial notice of them. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385 , 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626 , 635 n. 1 (N.D.Cal.1978), aff'd, 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir.); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 26 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th. Cir. 1980). 2 The Court notes that the defendant has filed numerous claims of domestic violence against the plaintiff (Case Nos.: BFL27 16-001080, BFL-18-004832; BFL-19-001076, BFL-15-001621) and the current restraining order expires on January 23, 2024 (Case No.: BFL-18-004832). The plaintiff has also sued the defendant in a small claims action in the Kern County — 28 — 1 895, 898 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Feldman, 460 U.S. at 483, 485 ). 2 The Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars federal review of state court decisions regarding proceedings 3 in family court. See, e.g., Moore v. County of Butte, 547 Fed. Appx. 826, 829 (9th Cir. 2013) (finding a 4 plaintiff's claims challenging the outcome of custody proceedings were properly dismissed); Rucker v. 5 County of Santa Clara, State of California, 2003 WL 21440151 , at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 17, 2003) 6 (finding the plaintiff's claims were “inextricably intertwined” with the state court's rulings where the 7 plaintiff “challenge[d] his original child support order on jurisdictional grounds, dispute[d] his total 8 child support arrearages, and allege[d] that Santa Clara County's garnishment order against his 9 disability benefits payments is invalid”); see also Ignacio v. Judges of U.S. Court of Appeals, 453 F.3d 10 1160, 1165-66 (9th Cir. 2006) (affirming the district court's dismissal of the case “because the 11 complaint is nothing more than another attack on the California superior court's determination in [the 12 plaintiff's] domestic case”). 13 Significantly, it appears that Plaintiff wants the Court to redetermine the property division made 14 in the Kern County Superior Court.3 Notably, the divorce was final more than a year before the 15 defendant moved from the jurisdiction. Any complaints about the division of the assets was a question 16 for the Family Court. In addition, the allegation that the defendant owes the plaintiff money is belied by 17 the judgment obtained against him by the County of Kern for unpaid child support. (Case No. BDA-1918 001021, dated July 26, 2019) Indeed, the Kern County Superior Court determined implicitly that the 19 defendant does not owe him money when it issued the judgment ordering the plaintiff to pay back child 20 support. Thus, this lawsuit seeks to relitigate claims determined in that state court action. Accordingly, 21 it appears the Court is unable to grant Plaintiff the relief requested according to the Rooker-Feldman 22 doctrine. 23 B. Allegations of diversity jurisdiction are unsupported 24 To establish diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate that he and the defendant are 25 residents of different states and that there is $75,000 in controversy. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . The complaint — 26 — 27 3 Likewise, when a married couple holds property in joint tenancy—such as in a bank account—either partner has the right to the entirety of the property, not just half. The concept of community property only concerns property divisions; it does — 28 — 1 demonstrates the first element, because he alleges that he lives in California and his ex-wife lives in 2 Indiana. (Doc. 1 at 4) However, he seeks to recover, apparently, all amounts he has paid toward the 3 wedding ceremony and reception, travel for his ex-wife from India and financial support of his ex-wife 4 from before their marriage (Doc. 1). There is no support for the claim that these amounts are 5 recoverable.4 Indeed, the plaintiff makes no effort to set forth a cause of action that would entitle him to 6 the relief he seeks. Also, each owner of a joint bank account is entitled to all of the money in the joint 7 account, not just half. Lee v. Yang, 111 Cal.App.4th 481, 490 (Cal. App. 1st Dist. 2003). Thus, reason 8 dictates that once these amounts are deducted, the amount alleged to be in controversy falls below 9 $75,000. Consequently, the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. 10 C. Findings and recommendation 11 As set forth above, the face of the complaint demonstrates a lack of jurisdiction. Accordingly, 12 the Court RECOMMENDS that the action be DISMISSED. 13 These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local 15 Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within fourteen 16 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written 17 objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s 18 Findings and Recommendations.” The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the 19 specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 20 1153 (9th Cir. 1991); Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 834 (9th Cir. 2014). — 21 — 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 Dated: February 9, 2021 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston 24 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE — 25 — — 26 — 27 4 For example, a gift given in contemplation of marriage assumes the marriage will take place. Once it has taken place, the gift is no longer recoverable. Cal. Civil Code § 1590 . Likewise, where the donor is the cause of the failure of the condition, — 28 —