Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02955/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-02955-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BENJAMIN D. AGUSTIN,

Plaintiff,

 v.

COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-02955 JSW

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

In this action, Plaintiff Benjamin D. Agustin (“Agustin”) is challenging Defendant

County of Alameda’s (the “County”) efforts to collect child support payments from him for

Caitlin N. Manuel and to give such payments to Joanne Manuel. This same matter is also the

subject of a state court action currently pending in Alameda Superior Court. 

The County of Alameda filed the state court action against Augustin on June 10, 2005 to

collect child support payments from Agustin. Agustin asserted affirmative defenses under

various federal laws and then removed the state court action based his federal defenses. This

Court remanded the state court action based on a lack of federal subject mater jurisdiction. On

the same day he removed the state court action, Agustin filed this matter asserting his federal

defenses to the County’s attempts to collect child support payments as independent, stand-alone

federal claims. 

In Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971), the Supreme Court “espouse[d] a strong

federal policy against federal-court interference with pending state judicial proceedings.” H.C.

v. Koppel, 203 F.3d 610, 613 (9th Cir.2000) (internal quotations omitted). Courts may consider

Case 3:05-cv-02955-JSW Document 30 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 2
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

 Because the Court is dismissing this action in its entirety based on the Younger

doctrine, the County’s pending motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and

for failure to state a claim and the County’s motion for a more definite statement are

HEREBY DENIED as MOOT. Agustin’s pending request for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration is also DENIED as MOOT. Accordingly, the hearing on these motions

currently scheduled for February 17, 2006 is VACATED. 

2

whether Younger absention is warranted sua sponte. San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San

Francisco, 145 F.3d 1095, 1103 (9th Cir. 1998). “Abstention is required when: ‘(i) the state

proceedings are ongoing; (ii) the proceedings implicate important state interests; and (iii) the

state proceedings provide an adequate opportunity to raise federal questions.’” Delta Dental

Plan of California, Inc. v. Mendoza, 139 F.3d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1998) (internal citations and

quotations omitted). If the Younger doctrine applies, the Court must dismiss this case. See

H.C., 203 F.3d at 613.

The Court finds that all three prongs of the Younger test are satisfied here. First, the

state court action filed by the County to collect child support payments is ongoing. Second, the

state court proceeding to collect child support is a family relations matter that implicates

important state interests. See id. (holding that custody dispute was a family relations a matter, a

traditional area of state concern, and thus implicated important state interests). Finally, the

Court finds that the state court proceedings provide an adequate opportunity for Agustin to raise

any federal issues relating to the County’s efforts to collect child support payments. As he has

already done, Agustin may file affirmative defenses based on federal law in the state court

action. Thus, the Court HEREBY DISMISSES this case.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 15, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-02955-JSW Document 30 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 2