Beneficial Financial 1 Inc v. Mariano Pineda et al

Filing 3

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen. The Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case number 11U00670 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-04702-JHN -JCGx

Title

Beneficial Financial I Inc v. Mariano Pineda et al

Present: The
Honorable

Date

June 14, 2011

JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN

Alicia Mamer

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Proceedings:

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT (In Chambers)

On June 2, 2011, Defendants Mariano Pineda and Leonila Pineda removed this action to
federal court from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los
Angeles on the basis of federal question and diversity jurisdiction. However, for the
reasons herein, the jurisdictional allegations are defective.
I. REMOVAL JURISDICTION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the Court has removal jurisdiction over civil actions “arising
under” federal law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of
federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which
provides that 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). The only exception to this rule is where the plaintiff’s federal claim has
been disguised by “artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a state claim
preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th
Cir. 1987). Moreover, the assertion of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not
convert the state-law claim into one “arising under” federal law for purposes of
federal-question jurisdiction. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241,
1244 (9th Cir. 2009).
The removing defendant bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the
evidence, the facts supporting removal. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir.
1992).
Here, Defendants fail to demonstrate the presence of a federal question. Although the
Notice of Removal alleges that a claim in the present action arises under federal law
(Notice of Removal ¶ 15), the Complaint’s only cause of action is for unlawful detainer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

2:11-cv-04702-JHN -JCGx

Date

Title

June 14, 2011

Beneficial Financial I Inc v. Mariano Pineda et al

(Notice of Removal, Ex. A, Compl. for Unlawful Detainer 1). No federal question is
presented on the face of the Complaint, nor has a federal claim been disguised by artful
pleading. That Defendants may intend to assert a federal defense to the state-law claim
contained in the Complaint does not convert this straightforward unlawful detainer
proceeding into a civil action arising under federal law.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court also has original jurisdiction over civil actions where
there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). Here, there is no
allegation of diversity of citizenship, and the Complaint explicitly states that the amount
demanded does not exceed $10,000. As such, there is also no diversity jurisdiction.
For these reasons, Defendants have not met their burden of establishing removal
jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.
II. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

N/A

AM

Page 2 of 2