Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04748/USCOURTS-cand-5_15-cv-04748-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Breach of Contract

---

1

Case No. 15-CV-04748-LHK 

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF 

CALIFORNIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LILY HELEN KO,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-CV-04748-LHK 

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 

STATE COURT

On October 14, 2015, Defendant Lily Helen Ko (“Ko”) filed a notice of removal in an 

attempt to remove two pending child custody cases from the Santa Clara County Superior Court to 

this Court. ECF No. 1. 

A federal district court must remand a removed case to state court “[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). Federal courts do not have jurisdiction over child custody 

matters; rather, those decisions rest firmly within the province of state courts. See, e.g., 

Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U.S. 689, 703 (1992) (“The domestic relations exception . . . divests 

the federal courts of power to issue divorce, alimony, and child custody decrees.”). 

Accordingly, because the domestic relations exception applies here, the Court hereby 

Case 5:15-cv-04748-LHK Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 Page 1 of 2
2

Case No. 15-CV-04748-LHK 

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

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

REMANDS the instant action to the Santa Clara County Superior Court.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 7, 2015

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

 

1

In determining that there is no basis for federal jurisdiction in the instant action, the Court need 

not address the other issues raised in Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins’ Report and 

Recommendation. See ECF No. 5 at 3 (recommending that the Court deny Ko’s application for 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and recommending that the Court dismiss Ko’s counterclaim

against the State of California). However, if the Court were to address these issues, the Court 

would find Judge Cousins’ Report and Recommendation on these matters well-founded in fact and 

in law.

Case 5:15-cv-04748-LHK Document 9 Filed 12/07/15 Page 2 of 2