Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05366/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-05366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 18:1962 Racketeering (RICO) Act

---

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

For the Northern District of California

IN 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 abovetitled 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 crosscomplaint 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 01/03/06 Page 1 of 2
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 action for lack of subject

matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), to the Superior Court of the State of

California, in and for the County of Contra Costa.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2005 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-05366-MMC Document 9 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 2