Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01497/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01497-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:0045 Federal Trade Commission Act (unfair or deceptive acts)

---

1

19cv1497-L(LL)

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRINA ZHURAVLEVA,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNITED STATES POLO 

ASSOCIATION,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19cv1497-L(LL)

CLASS ACTION

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO 

STATE COURT

Defendant United States Polo Association removed this false advertising action 

from state court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1331 and 1441. For the reasons stated below, 

the action is remanded.

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 

authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 

to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 

establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. 

Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). 

Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is 

strictly construed against removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 

Case 3:19-cv-01497-L-LL Document 4 Filed 08/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19cv1497-L(LL)

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

1992). Furthermore, "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the 

United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed . . ..” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

Defendant's notice of removal is based on 28 U.S.C. §1331, which confers "original 

jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 

United States." Defendant claims federal question exists in this case because Plaintiff 

references Fair Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. §§41 et seq. ("FTCA") and 

implementing regulations in the complaint, although Plaintiff chose to assert only state 

law claims alleging violations of (1) the unfair, fraudulent and unlawful prongs of 

California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.; 

(2) California's False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 et seq.; and 

California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code § 1750 et seq. Defendant 

removed the case because an FTCA violation is alleged as one of the alternative bases for 

violation of the unlawful prong of the UCL. (Compl. ¶¶84, 88.) Plaintiff did not 

separately allege an FTCA claim.

"[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the wellpleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." 

Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (internal quotation marks, 

brackets and citation omitted). "[T]he plaintiff is the 'master' of [his] case, and if []he can 

maintain [his] claims on both state and federal grounds, []he may ignore the federal 

question, assert only state claims, and defeat removal." Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 

1485 (9th Cir. 1996). 

Here, Plaintiff chose to allege only state law claims. In such cases, the claim 

"arises under" federal law only if the claim necessarily raises a stated federal issue, which 

is actually disputed and substantial, and which a federal forum may entertain without 

disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial 

Case 3:19-cv-01497-L-LL Document 4 Filed 08/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19cv1497-L(LL)

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

responsibilities. Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). Where, as here, a state law 

claim incorporates a federal standard as an element of one of alternative theories of 

liability, the federal issue is not necessarily raised, and the claim does not "arise under" 

federal law. Ultramar Am. Ltd. v. Dwelle, 900 F.2d 1412, 1414 (9th Cir. 1990); see also 

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 810 (1988); Duncan, 76 F.3d 

at 1486. 

Accordingly, Defendant has not met its burden of establishing removal 

jurisdiction. Because the notice of removal fails to establish federal jurisdiction, this 

action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of 

San Diego.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01497-L-LL Document 4 Filed 08/16/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3