Ocean Ridge Equities LLC v. Yesenia Alvarez et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) Order REMANDING Case to State Court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Court finds on its own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and REMANDS the case to state court. (PLEASE REVIEW DOCUMENT FOR FUL L AND COMPLETE DETAILS) re: remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, South District, Long Beach, Case number 14F04558. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Letter of Trasmittal - Remand to Superior Court) (lw)

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

CV 14-5543 PSG (CWx)

Title

Ocean Ridge Equities, LLC v. Yesenia Alvarez, et al.

Present:

Date

July 21, 2014

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy Hernandez
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to State Court

On July 17, 2014, Defendant Yesenia Alvarez (“Defendant”) filed a notice of removal of
a civil action for unlawful detainer brought by Plaintiff Ocean Ridge Equities, LLC (“Plaintiff”).
See Dkt. # 1. After reviewing Defendant’s notice of removal and the underlying Complaint, the
Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Moore v. Maricopa Cnty.
Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Court is obligated to determine sua
sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If at any
time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991).
There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal
always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582
F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). If there is any ambiguity as to the propriety of removal, federal
jurisdiction must be rejected. See id. Furthermore, “a defendant may not [generally] remove a
case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’
federal law.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (emphasis in original).
The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to be evident from the face of
the plaintiff’s complaint for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to exist. See Rivet v. Regions
Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Here, the Complaint asserts only a claim for unlawful
detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the
complaint, no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 14-5543 PSG (CWx)

Date

Title

July 21, 2014

Ocean Ridge Equities, LLC v. Yesenia Alvarez, et al.

Defendant’s notice of removal suggests that federal question jurisdiction is established
based upon violations of Defendant’s civil rights. See NOR 2:11-2:15. However, under the
well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s federal claims or defenses may not serve as a basis
for removal. See Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985); Le v.
Young Champions Recreation Programs, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36074, at *3-4 (C.D. Cal. Apr.
30, 2008) (“[R]emoval cannot be based on a counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim
raising a federal question; to hold otherwise would allow defendants to determine the
removeability of a case.”).
The Court also notes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal
court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity between the parties
and the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7
U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The unlawful detainer complaint seeks
damages in an amount less than $75,000. Compl. ¶¶ 14-15. Therefore, the amount in
controversy requirement is not met.
Defendant’s notice of removal ultimately alleges that removal jurisdiction is proper based
on 28 U.S.C. § 1441. See NOR 2:19-2:22. Under Section 1441, a party may remove an action to
the district court embracing the state court where the action is currently pending if the district
court would also have original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Since Defendant has
failed to provide a sufficient basis for original federal jurisdiction, the action cannot properly be
removed under Section 1441.
Accordingly, the Court finds on its own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter and REMANDS the case to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2