Aslan Residential V, LLC v. Carmelita M. Capistrano et al

Filing 9

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendant. The law is clear that &qu ot;[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court." Defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or asserting defenses. Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before 5/1/2012, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

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

CV 12-1407 CAS (AGRx)

Title

ASLAN RESIDENTIAL v. CARMELITA M. CAPISTRANO, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

April 11, 2012

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

CATHERINE JEANG
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE
SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On January 13, 2012, plaintiff Aslan Residential V, LLC filed an unlawful detainer
action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against pro se defendant Carmelita M.
Capistrano. On February 17, 2012, defendant filed a notice of removal to this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant asserts various federal defenses in her notice of
removal. See Dkt. No. 1.
II.

DISCUSSION

The law is clear that “[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of
state court.” Federal Nat’l Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, *6
(E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2011); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for
unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”). A defendant’s
attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a
notice of removal must fail. McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th
Cir. 2007).
Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against
defendant. Dkt. No. 1 at 37. Defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction
by adding claims or asserting defenses. McAtee, 479 F.3d at 1145. Accordingly,
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 12-1407 CAS (AGRx)

Date

April 11, 2012

Title

ASLAN RESIDENTIAL v. CARMELITA M. CAPISTRANO, ET AL.

defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before May 1, 2012, why the
instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

00

:

00

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2