DORIAN CARTER V. NATHALEE EVANS, No. 20-55952 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on December 21, 2021.
Download PDF
FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 1 2022 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS DORIAN CARTER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. No. 20-55952 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03217-MWF-E Central District of California, Los Angeles NATHALEE EVANS, as Claimant to Status ORDER of Trustee of the Declaration Establishing the Eugenia M. Ringgold Living Trust Dated February 28, 1997 and to status as Executor of the State of Eugenia M. Ringgold, Defendant-Appellant, and TRACY SHEEN, Defendant. Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. The panel has voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing. The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc and no judge has requested a vote on whether to rehear the matter en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 35. Evans’s petition for panel rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc (Docket Entry No. 33) are denied. The previous disposition, filed on December 21, 2021, is withdrawn. A new disposition will be filed concurrently with this order. No further filings will be entertained in this closed case. 2 20-55952 FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 1 2022 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DORIAN CARTER, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 20-55952 Plaintiff-Appellee, v. D.C. No. 2:19-cv-03217-MWF-E MEMORANDUM* NATHALEE EVANS, as Claimant to Status of Trustee of the Declaration Establishing the Eugenia M. Ringgold Living Trust Dated February 28, 1997 and to status as Executor of the State of Eugenia M. Ringgold, Defendant-Appellant, and TRACY SHEEN, Defendant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Nathalee Evans appeals from the district court’s order remanding her case to California Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s decision to remand a removed case. Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006). We may affirm on any basis supported by the record. Thompson v. Paul, 547 F.3d 1055, 1058-59 (9th Cir. 2008). We affirm. The district court properly remanded Evans’s action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because Evans failed to establish either federal question or diversity jurisdiction, Evans failed to show that the state court could not enforce her rights, and Evans has not identified a California statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state court to ignore her federal civil rights. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332, 1443; Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 513 (2006) (requirements of federal question and diversity jurisdiction); Patel, 446 F.3d at 998-99 (two-part test for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1)); see also BP P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 141 S. Ct. 1532, 1538 (2021) (when 28 U.S.C. § 1443 is one ground for removal, § 1447(d) permits appellate review of a district court’s entire remand order). We do not consider matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). 2 20-55952 Evans’s request for judicial notice (Docket Entry No. 14) is denied. AFFIRMED. 3 20-55952
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
