Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03833/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-03833-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIM

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 Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL HILF,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATTHEW GRASMUCK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING 

COUNTERCLAIM

(Re: Docket No. 35)

The court dismissed Plaintiff Paul Hilf’s complaint without leave to amend due to Younger

abstention.1 The court now DISMISSES Defendant Arthur Trujillo’s counterclaim for lack of 

subject matter jurisdiction.

2

 

I.

Trujillo claims that he towed and stored Hilf’s car at the order of the California Highway 

Patrol and that Hilf has not taken the proper steps under Cal. Veh. Code §§ 14607.6, 22850.5 to 

reclaim his car.3 Trujillo seeks $10,050.00 plus interest for outstanding towing and storage costs.

4

 

II.

Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, 

 

1

See Docket No. 44.

2

See Docket No. 35 at 17-18.

3

See id. at 17.

4

See id.

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 45 Filed 01/11/16 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 5:15-cv-03833-PSG

ORDER DISMISSING COUNTERCLAIM

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 Court

Northern District of California

laws, or treaties of the United States.”5 A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the 

“wellpleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief.6 Defenses and 

counterclaims asserting a federal question do not satisfy this requirement.7 Federal district courts 

also have jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or 

value of $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states.8

In this case, the court lacks both “arising under” and diversity jurisdiction. Trujillo’s 

counterclaim consists solely of a state law claim and less than $75,000 is in controversy, and so 

there is no independent basis for jurisdiction over the counterclaim.9 The court dismissed Hilf’s 

complaint because Younger v. Harris requires federal courts to abstain from interfering with 

ongoing state criminal proceedings, and so the court may not exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over Trujillo’s counterclaim.

10

 Trujillo’s counterclaim is DISMISSED. Trujillo may file his own 

action against Hilf in state court to collect his requested relief. 

SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2016

_________________________________

PAUL S. GREWAL

United States Magistrate Judge

 

5

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

6

Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009).

7

Id.

8

See 28 U.S.C. §1332.

9

See, e.g., Davis v. Bayer, Case No. C-93-1568-DLJ, 1993 WL 372258, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 8, 

1993) (dismissing plaintiff’s complaint due to Younger abstention and denying entry of default 

and judgment on defendant’s state-law counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction).

10 See Docket No. 44 at 4-5.

Case 5:15-cv-03833-PSG Document 45 Filed 01/11/16 Page 2 of 2