Selene RMFO REO Acquisition LLC v. Desiree A Gill et al

Filing 9

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge John F. Walter remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 11U11770. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (Attachments: # 1 Letter) (kbr)

JS-6

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

CV 13-2127-JFW (AGRx)

Title:

Selene RMFO REO Acquisition, LLC.-v- Desiree A. Gill, et al.

Date: March 28, 2013

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff Selene RMFO REO Acquisition, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a
Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Desiree A. Gill and Ed Duray (“Defendants”)
in Los Angeles Superior Court. On March 25, 2013, Edmound Daire (“Daire”) filed a Notice of
Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v.
Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong
presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Daire bear the burden of demonstrating that
removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche
Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Daire fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s Complaint
alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Daire alleges in his Notice of
Removal that the claim arises under federal law, “[a]n unlawful detainer action does not raise a

Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of
jurisdiction.” Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003)
(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by
Plaintiff’s action.1
In addition, Daire’s removal of this action is an improper subsequent removal.2 A second
removal is permissible when made on new grounds arising from subsequent pleadings or events.
See Peabody v. Maud Van Cortland Hill Schroll Trust, 892 F.2d 772, 776 (9th Cir. 1989); One
Sylvan Rd. N. Assocs. v. Lark Int’l, Ltd., 889 F.Supp. 60, 62-63 (D. Conn. 1995) (“A defendant who
fails in an attempt to remove on the initial pleadings can file a second removal petition when
subsequent pleadings or events reveal a new and different ground for removal.”). A party cannot
remove a case twice based on the same grounds. See Seedman v. U.S. Dist. Court for Cent. Dist.
Of Cal., 837 F.2d 413, 414 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding that “a second removal petition based on the
same grounds does not ‘reinvest’ the court’s jurisdiction”). Indeed, a second attempt at removal is
justified only when there has been a “substantial change in the nature of the instant case since it
was last in this court.” One Sylvan, 889 F.Supp. at 64.
In this case, there has been no change in the nature of the case, nor has there been any
subsequent pleading or paper which provides a basis for a second removal. Therefore, Daire has
impermissibly attempted to remove this action twice on the same grounds. Such successive
removals are procedurally improper.

For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1

Daire also mentions diversity jurisdiction in his Notice of Removal, but does not allege the
citizenship of Plaintiff, the citizenship of any of the defendants, or that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, Daire has failed to demonstrate that diversity jurisdiction exists.
2

Daire previously removed this action on the same grounds on January 2, 2013. This Court
remanded the action to Los Angeles Superior Court on January 4, 2013.
Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr