1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District CourtFor the Northern District of CaliforniaIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MITSUBISHI MOTORS CREDIT OF
AMERICA, INC.,
Plaintiff
v.
EL CERRITO AUTOMOTIVE
INVESTMENTS, INC., et al.,
Defendants
/
No. C-05-5366 MMC
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
Before the Court is plaintiff and counter-defendant Mitsubishi Motors Credit of
America, Inc.’s (“MMCA”) Notice of Removal, by which MMCA has removed the above-
titled action to federal court. The action consists of MMCA’s complaint against defendants
El Cerrito Automotive Investments, Inc., Bruce Kavich, and Zoran J. Zarich (collectively, “El
Cerrito”) and El Cerrito’s cross-complaint against MMCA.
MMCA’s complaint alleges only state law claims against El Cerrito, and MMCA does
not allege diversity of citizenship. Rather, MMCA alleges that because El Cerrito’s cross-
complaint includes a claim arising under federal law, specifically, a claim under 18 U.S.C.
§ 1962, the federal district court has federal question jurisdiction over the action.
Only claims set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint can establish “arising under”
jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S.
Case 3:05-cv-05366-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/03/2006 Page 1 of 2
Mitsubishi Motors Credit of America, Inc v. El Cerrito Automotive Investments, Inc. et al
Doc. 9
Dockets.Justia.com
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
826, 831 (2002). “[A] counterclaim – which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not
as part of the plaintiff’s complaint – cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’
jurisdiction.” Id. Here, MMCA’s complaint does not include any claim that arises under
federal law. Consequently, the Court lacks “arising under” jurisdiction. See id.
Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS the above-titled