Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02808/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02808-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Fraud

---

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

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUBMITTED ON THE PAPERS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX

PARTE MOTION TO MOVE PLEADING AND HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02808 RMW

JAH

E-FILED on 11-8-05

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JOSEPH N. ELLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CYNTHIA DAWN CRENNELL, and DOES

ONE THROUGH ONE HUNDRED,

Defendants.

No. C-05-02808 RMW

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT'S MOTION

TO DISMISS SUBMITTED ON THE PAPERS;

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE

MOTION TO MOVE PLEADING AND

HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANT'S

MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

[Re Docket Nos. 17, 30]

Defendant Cynthia Crennell moves to dismiss plaintiff Joseph Ellis's complaint for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction, or alternatively for this court to decline to exercise jurisdiction under the doctrines of

Burford or Younger abstention. For the reasons given below, the court grants defendant's motion to

dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

On July 8, 2005, Ellis filed a complaint against Crennell in this court, seeking to force her to return

funds she acquired pursuant to a child support action in state court, "Santa Cruz County Superior Court

Civil Action No. PA-10180." This court is alleged to have jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship, see

28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), because over $75,000 is at stake, and Ellis resides in Tennessee and Crennell in

Case 5:05-cv-02808-RMW Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 1 of 5
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

1 Ellis filed his consent to proceed before a magistrate judge on the same day, and Crennell

had consented to proceed before a magistrate judge sometime before. To prevent judge-shopping, cases

are generally not referred to a magistrate judge once a district court judge has issued a substantive order in

an action. This action thus remains before this court.

2 This court's civil law and motion calendar is ordinarily heard on Friday mornings.

3 The court has not approved this joint stipulation, and will not. Plaintiff should need

nowhere near 25 pages for her motion to dismiss. The court has only considered the first 25 pages of her

motion to dismiss. See Civil L.R. 7-4(b).

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUBMITTED ON THE PAPERS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX

PARTE MOTION TO MOVE PLEADING AND HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02808 RMW

JAH 2

California. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 3-4. This court denied the plaintiff's application for a temporary restraining on

November 10, 2005.1 

On October 26, 2005, Crennell filed a motion to dismiss and, apparently assuming Magistrate

Judge Richard Seeborg would rule on the motion, scheduled a hearing on the motion on December 14,

2005. As part of the parties' joint stipulation to delay the case management conference until after a ruling

on the plaintiff's motion to dismiss, this court moved the hearing date to Friday, December 16, 2005.2

Under Civil L.R. 7-3(a), this made any opposition by Ellis to Crennell's motion to dismiss due on

November 25, 2005.

Ellis filed nothing until December 5, 2005, when he filed an ex parte application to move pleading

and hearing dates on defendant's motion to dismiss ("Appl."). Ellis's motion indicates he is unaware of the

progress of this case: He states that Crennell has "simply chosen to ignore . . . these proceedings," Appl. at

3, even though she has filed a motion to dismiss. He states that this "court seems to have taken no action

on" his application for a temporary restraining order, id., even though this court denied that application

almost a month ago. He complains that the plaintiff's motion to dismiss is "oversize," id. at 4, even though

the parties submitted a joint stipulation for Crennell to exceed Civil L.R. 7-2(b)'s 25-page limit on October

25, 2005.3 He states that Crennell's motion to dismiss is set for hearing on December 14, 2005, Appl. at

4, apparently unaware that the hearing date was changed to December 16 almost a month ago.

II. ANALYSIS

On this court's own motion, the defendant's motion to dismiss is deemed submitted on the papers. 

No oral argument will be held; no appearance is needed. The court does not see how the plaintiff could

overcome the obvious jurisdictional defects of his action, and the court is not inclined to allow the plaintiff

Case 5:05-cv-02808-RMW Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 2 of 5
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

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUBMITTED ON THE PAPERS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX

PARTE MOTION TO MOVE PLEADING AND HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02808 RMW

JAH 3

additional time to attempt to do so; the plaintiff's request for more time falls woefully short of the

requirements of Civil L.R. 6-3 and does not explain why plaintiff did not file an opposition by November

25, 2005. Furthermore, a dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction may—and should—be made by

a court sua sponte if it appears to the court that it lacks jurisdiction over an action. See Grupo Dataflux

v. Atlas Global Group, L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004).

A. The domestic relations exception

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which grants federal district courts jurisdiction over parties of diverse

citizenship, has traditionally been read to exclude cases involving domestic relations. Csibi v. Fustos, 670

F.2d 134, 136 (9th Cir. 1982). "[A]t the core of the domestic relations exception[] are cases where a

federal court is asked to grant a divorce or annulment, determine support payments, or award custody of a

child. The cases are in agreement that there is no subject-matter jurisdiction over these types of domestic

disputes." Id. at 137. A district court also has discretion to abstain from exercising jurisdiction over

matters tangentially related "to other issues determinative of" a domestic relations matter. Id. (giving

examples of actions "to enforce a defaulting spouse's obligations under a state support decree, to enforce a

final state divorce decree under the Full Faith and Credit clause, to invalidate a state divorce decree

obtained without personal jurisdiction, to award damages in a suit between two spouses for breach of

contract, and to determine the rights of spouses under federal statutes").

Ellis's complaint contains six causes of action: (1) "Breach of Written Agreement," for Crennell's

alleged failure to adhere to a contract under which Ellis paid Crennell $150,000 in exchange for her

promise to never institute a child support action against him; (2) "Promissory Fraud," for Crennell allegedly

deceptively inducing Ellis to enter into the contract; (3) "Declaratory Relief," for a judicial determination of

the meaning of the contract; (4) "For An Accounting," for Crennell's alleged failure to use the $150,000 for

the care of the parties' child; (5) "Temporary, Preliminary and Permanent Restraining Orders," to require

Crennell to either use all funds from Ellis for the benefit of the child or return those funds to Ellis; (6)

"Reformation of Written Instrument," to have the contract reformed to reflect the parties' true intention. 

Compl. ¶¶ 9-39. To the extent Ellis's primarily contractual claims are within the core domestic relations

exception to diversity jurisdiction, this court lacks jurisdiction over the claims; to the extent they are outside

Case 5:05-cv-02808-RMW Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 3 of 5
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

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUBMITTED ON THE PAPERS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX

PARTE MOTION TO MOVE PLEADING AND HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02808 RMW

JAH 4

of the core domestic relations exception, this court will use its discretion to decline to exercise jurisdiction

over them. There is no just reason for the parties' dispute, the paternity aspect of which cannot be litigated

in federal court, to be split between multiple fora.

B. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine

The plaintiff's action would also appear to be a collateral attack on the California state court's

monetary awards to the defendant. The Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives federal district courts of

jurisdiction over "cases brought by state-court losers complaining of injuries caused by state-court

judgments rendered before the district court proceedings commenced and inviting district court review and

rejection of those judgments." Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 125 S.Ct. 1517 (2005). 

As this court could not grant plaintiff the relief he seeks on any of his six causes of action without affecting

the state-court judgment against him, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine constitutes a wholly sufficient

alternative ground for dismissal of this action.

As the court lacks jurisdiction over the case, it does not reach Crennell's arguments that Burford

and Younger abstention are appropriate, and does not reach the merits of Ellis's claims.

III. ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court 

(1) deems the defendant's motion to dismiss submitted on the papers,

(2) denies the plaintiff's request to move the hearing date, and

(3) dismisses the plaintiff's action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

DATED: 11/8/05 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:05-cv-02808-RMW Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 4 of 5
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

ORDER DEEMING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUBMITTED ON THE PAPERS; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S EX

PARTE MOTION TO MOVE PLEADING AND HEARING DATES ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS; GRANTING

DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS—No. C-05-02808 RMW

JAH 5

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiff:

Donald C. Schwartz triallaw@schwartzlaw.biz 

Counsel for Defendant:

Michael L. Kosloff mkosloff@sbcglobal.net 

J. Mark Thacker jthacker@ropers.com 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not registered for

e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 11-8-05 /s/ JH

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:05-cv-02808-RMW Document 31 Filed 12/08/05 Page 5 of 5