Green Century Investment Group Inc v. Eduardo Acosta et al

Filing 13

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT : The Court is in receipt of Defendant Eduardo Acostas Notice of Removal. Having carefully considered the papers filed in conjunction with the Notice, however, the Court determines that it la cks subject matter jurisdiction over this case.Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court. by Judge Otis D Wright, II. cc: order, docket, remand letter to to Los Angeles Superior Court, East District, West Covina, No. 11 U 01681.( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (lc)

Download PDF
1 O 2 JS-6 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 cc: order, docket sheet, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court, East District, West Covina, No. 11 U 01681 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Green Century Investment Group, Inc., ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) Eduardo Acosta, and DOES 1-10, ) ) Defendants. ________________________________ ) Case No. CV 11-10452-ODW (AGRx) Order REMANDING Case to Los Angeles County Superior Court 17 The Court is in receipt of Defendant Eduardo Acosta’s (“Defendant”) Notice of 18 Removal. Having carefully considered the papers filed in conjunction with the Notice, 19 however, the Court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 20 Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court. 21 “Any civil action brought in a [s]tate court of which the district courts . . . have 22 original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district 23 court . . . embracing the place where such action is pending . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 24 The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham 25 v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus v. Miles, 26 Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, Defendant claims that this Court has 27 subject matter jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1331. (Dkt. No. 1.) 28 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well- 1 pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a 2 federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” 3 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (U.S. 1987). “Thus, the plaintiff is the 4 master of his complaint and may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state 5 law. It is settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a 6 federal defense . . . .” Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 7 2009) (citations omitted); see also Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers 8 Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (an actual or anticipated federal defense is not 9 sufficient to confer jurisdiction). 10 A case removed from state court should be remanded if it appears that it was 11 removed improvidently. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Because the ‘removal statutes are strictly 12 construed against removal,’ doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of remand.” 13 Dodd v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 688 F. Supp. 564, 566 (E.D. Cal. 1988) 14 (quoting Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)); see 15 also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992). 16 With regards to Defendant’s argument that the Court has jurisdiction over this case 17 pursuant to § 1331, “because this is an unlawful detainer action, a federal question does 18 not present itself.” Aurora Loan Servs. v. De La Rosa, No. 11-912, 2011 U.S. Dist. 19 LEXIS 69217, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011); see also IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. 20 v. Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte 21 remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's 22 complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim); Galileo Fi. v. Miin Sun Park, No. 23 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only 24 asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. 25 Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question 26 jurisdiction exists.”). Additionally, the Complaint does not allege any other federal 27 question, and any federal defense raised by Defendant is irrelevant with regard to 28 jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case under § 1331. 1 2 3 In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 January 12, 2012 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _________________________________ HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?