Opinion ID: 181328
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misuse of the Declaratory Judgment Act

Text: The cities also argue that the government is misusing the Declaratory Judgment Act to manufacture a federal claim. Framing the government's lawsuit as a federal preemption defense to a state cause of action, the cities argue that the government has sought to establish the validity of a federal defense without presenting a federal claim, in violation of the well-pleaded complaint rule. [F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded complaint. JustMed, Inc. v. Byce, 600 F.3d 1118, 1124 (9th Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). The mere existence of a federal defense to a state law claim is insufficient to create federal jurisdiction over a case. Louisville & Nat'l R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152, 29 S.Ct. 42, 53 L.Ed. 126 (1908). The well-pleaded complaint rule, however, poses no bar to federal jurisdiction in this case. Congress has, by statute, provided the district courts with original jurisdiction over all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1345; see also United States v. Morros, 268 F.3d 695, 702-03 (9th Cir.2001) ([T]he United States was the plaintiff in the case. Therefore, regardless of the outcome of federal question jurisdiction, the district court has independent subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1345. (emphasis added)). In this case, the government brought suit and invoked § 1345 in its complaint. The district court also had federal question jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides the district courts with original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. The government's complaint posed a federal question in its own right because it sought invalidation of the ordinances under federal law. See Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U.S. 85, 96 n. 14, 103 S.Ct. 2890, 77 L.Ed.2d 490 (1983). For these reasons, we reject the cities' belated contention that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over this case.