Filed: Aug. 02, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 02, 2018
Summary: Order REMANDING Case DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Despite the lack of a federal claim on the face of the complaint, Defendants recently removed this case from state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. In order for a state law claim to provide federal question jurisdiction, the "state law claim [must] necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance
Summary: Order REMANDING Case DALE S. FISCHER , District Judge . Despite the lack of a federal claim on the face of the complaint, Defendants recently removed this case from state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. In order for a state law claim to provide federal question jurisdiction, the "state law claim [must] necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance o..
More
Order REMANDING Case
DALE S. FISCHER, District Judge.
Despite the lack of a federal claim on the face of the complaint, Defendants recently removed this case from state court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.
In order for a state law claim to provide federal question jurisdiction, the "state law claim [must] necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities." Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). "That is, federal jurisdiction over a state law claim will lie if a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress." Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). "[I]t is not enough that the federal issue be significant to the particular parties in the immediate suit; that will always be true when the state claim `necessarily raise[s]' a disputed federal issue, as Grable separately requires. The substantiality inquiry under Grable looks instead to the importance of the issue to the federal system as a whole." Gunn, 568 U.S. at 260. "[T]he mere use of a federal statute as a predicate for a state law cause of action does not necessarily transform that cause of action into a federal claim. . . ." Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 675 (9th Cir. 2012). Nor does "the question whether a particular claim arises under federal law depend[] on the novelty of the federal issue." Id. (quoting Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 817 (1986)).
Defendants do not even make a serious attempt to satisfy the Grable/Gunn standard. The dispute between the parties involves whether a work was a work-for-hire, but there's no indication that any dispute in this case is at all "importan[t] . . . to the federal system as a whole." Nor is there an indication that the relevant federal law issue — apparently whether non-payment on a work-for-hire causes the hired creator of the work to acquire ownership rights in the work — is actually disputed by the parties.
The case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
