HOLDINGS: [1]-Plaintiff’s motion to remand was denied because its case had been properly removed to federal court under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1441(a), since there was complete diversity between plaintiff, a citizen of California, and defendant, a citizen of Delaware, its state of incorporation, and of Georgia, its principal place of business, and a settlement letter from plaintiff’s counsel established that the amount in controversy exceeded $ 75,000; [2]-The court denied defendant’s motion attorney’s fees and costs under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 because it included in defendant’s opposition to plaintiff’s motion to remand instead of being made by separate motion. Parties’ litigation lawyer Los Angeles appeal.
Table of Contents
Outcome
Motion to remand denied.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiff bank sued defendants, a state non-profit consumers against unfair practices group, its founder, and various unnamed individuals, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the founder from attempting to enforce state laws against it or from joining an ongoing state court action. The founder sought Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal, arguing, inter alia, that the suit was barred by the Anti-Injunction At, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2283.
Overview
An injunction was sought preventing enforcement of state “holiday laws” that allegedly prohibited penalties on payments received right after a holiday. Further, a declaration was sought that it was illegal to use the courts to enforce those laws. The federal district court dismissed. While the bank argued that the visitorial statute, 12 U.S.C.S. § 484, and the regulations promulgated pursuant to it, created a federal right that would be frustrated if federal courts could not enjoin state court actions, the state action was not a valid exercise of visitorial powers. Such powers could only be exercised by state officials, not private parties, and a private party’s use of state court did not convert an action into the type of official enforcement action that was barred by the doctrine. Moreover, an injunction was not permissible under the second exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C.S. § 2283; given the scope of visitorial powers, the state action did not intrude on federal jurisdiction. Finally, declaratory relief was also barred because, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.S. § 2202, if the federal court reached judgment before the state court, its judgment would have preclusive effect.
Outcome
The district court granted the motion to dismiss.
