GB Inland Properties II LLC v. Demetrius L Phillips et al

Filing 8

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Superior Court of California. Case number 12Q01507. Certified copies of docket sheet and Order to Remand sent to state court. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (rne)

JS-6

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

CV 12-09078-RGK (AJWx)

Title

GB INLAND PROPERTIES II, LLC v. DEMETRIUS L. PHILLIPS et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 1, 2012

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO
SUPERIOR COURT

On October 22, 2012, Defendants Demetrius and Lola Phillips, in pro se, removed this action
from state Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit
has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor
House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction
means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Federal question jurisdiction stands where a federal statute
creates a cause of action, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where the resolution of a right created by state law
necessarily turns on the construction of federal law, Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Eng'g
& Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Federal courts will only consider federal issues that arise on the face
of the complaint. Taylor v. Andersen, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76 (1914). Thus, an invocation of a federal law as
a defense in the answer is insufficient basis to establish federal question jurisdiction. Caterpillar Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 39 (1987).
Here, Defendants state that the basis for removal is that the claim arises under federal law.
However, the Court’s careful review of the Complaint filed by GB Inland Properties II, LLC
(“Plaintiff”) on September 4, 2012, shows that Plaintiff raised no federal question therein. Plaintiff’s
Complaint is a discrete action for unlawful detainer, an action which exclusively invokes authority
pursuant to California statute. Defendants cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to
attach a federal question to the Notice of Removal or by asserting a defense under federal law. Thus,
removal is improper under federal question.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior
Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2