United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
RICARDO S. MARTINEZ CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
7, 2019, Respondent filed a notice of removal in this court,
attaching a Petition for Divorce (Dissolution) that was filed
in 2017 in the Washington State Superior Court for King
County. Dkt. #1. Respondent's notice of removal indicates
that Respondent demands
to have this CLASS ACTION CASE removed to the FEDERAL COURT,
on the grounds of TREASON, THE MOORISH AMERICAN TREATY OF
PEACE & FRIENDSHIP OF 1787 & THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION OF 1789, JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, HUMAN TRAFFICKING,
RACKETEERING INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS
(R.I.C.O.), MONEY LAUNDERING, ANTI TUST [sic], MONOPOLY,
CIVIL RIGHTS, CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, BANK FRAUD, HOME
OWNERS BEING DEFRAUDED-(BY BANKS), FALSE IMPRISONMENT,
FRAUDULENT STATE JUDGES, OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, ETHICS IN
GOVERNMENT ACT & PRIVATE U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL ACT ET AL.
That this case is worth over Five & Million Dollars and
there are too many people to give notices to, by JOINDER and
will need to send notice to all PEOPLE OF THE CLASS ACTION.
Dkt. #1 at 1-2. Respondent has subsequently made two
filings that he indicates supplement his notice of removal.
Dkts. #10 and #11. The filings include a variety of legal
documents from the state-court divorce proceeding and several
other possibly related state court actions. Id. The
Court is unable to discern the intended purpose of these
federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, the party
asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of
establishing that the case is properly before in federal
court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377 (1994); In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South
Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001);
Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-
83 (9th Cir. 2006). Removal jurisdiction is strictly
construed in favor of remand, and any doubt as to the right
of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Harris v.
Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir.
2005). “If 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).
precise basis upon which Respondent asserts that this state
court divorce action may be removed to this Court is
unclear. Respondent indicates on the Court's
Civil Cover Sheet that he asserts diversity jurisdiction and
that he is a citizen of a foreign nation. Dkt. #1-2. However,
the Petition for Divorce indicates that both Petitioner and
Respondent are citizens of King County, Washington. Dkt. #1-1
at 1. Likewise, Respondent indicates that Petitioner is a
citizen of King County, Washington, and, despite indicating
that he is a citizen of a foreign nation, gives an address
within King County, Washington for himself. Dkt. #1. Further,
28 U.S.C. § 1446 provides that removal of a case based
on diversity must occur within one year of the action being
commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(1). Here, the Petition
for Divorce that Respondent attaches was signed on August 18,
2017 and clearly filed in 2017, indicating that removal was
clearly not timely.
notice of removal appears to possibly premise removal on the
basis of federal claims. Dkt. #1. But “federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482
U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (citing Gully v. First National
Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 112-13 (1936)). Respondent does
nothing to allege that any federal question is raised on the
face of the Petition for Divorce and does nothing to show
that the state court action “originally could have been
filed in federal court.” Id. Further still,
Respondent is unable to show that removal on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction is timely. 28 U.S.C. §
1446(b)(1) (“[t]he notice of removal of a civil action
or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt
by the defendant, through service or otherwise, of a copy of
the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon
which such action or proceeding is based”).
the Court ORDERS that Respondent, no later than
fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order,
shall SHOW CAUSE (1) why the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this matter, (2) why removal was properly
accomplished in accordance with the applicable federal
statutes, and (3) why this action should not be remanded for
a lack of jurisdiction. Respondent's response
shall not exceed five double-spaced pages. Failure
to respond to this Order may result in remand of this case.
 Nothing within the Petition for
Divorce gives any indication that it is properly considered a
 Domestic relations law, such as
divorce, are generally not matters for federal court:
Federal judges have used various doctrinal mechanisms
to refrain from intruding into the uncharted waters of state
domestic relations law. As the Court explained in
Ankenbrandt v. Richards, courts have often avoided
such an intrusion by invoking the “domestic relations
exception” to federal jurisdiction under the diversity
statute. 504 U.S. 689, 693, 112 S.Ct. 2206, 119 L.Ed.2d 468
(1992). Other courts have extended the exception to federal
question jurisdiction. See, e.g., Jones v. Brennan,
465 F.3d 304, 306-08 (7th Cir. 2006). And others have invoked
abstention doctrines to avoid state-law domestic relations
issues. See, e.g., Moore v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415,
423-35, 99 S.Ct. 2371, 60 L.Ed.2d 994 (1979); Coats v.
Woods, 819 F.2d 236, 237 (9th Cir. 1987) (“This
case, while raising constitutional issues, is at ...