Strategic Acquisitions, Inc. v. David Zarian et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 9/29/2014, the Court issued a scheduling notice stating that Plaintiff Strategic Acquisitions, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application to Remand the Case to State Court 8 should have been filed as a n oticed motion, construing Strategic's application as a noticed motion, and setting the 11/3/2014 hearing date and a corresponding briefing schedule. Because Strategic solely brings an action for unlawful detainer, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case and GRANTS Strategic's motion to remand. This case is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 14R05731. The Court DENIES Strategic's request for an award of costs and expenses incurred in connection with defendants' attempted removal of this action. ( MD JS-6. Case Terminated. ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)

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

2:14-cv-06897-CAS(MANx)

‘O’

Date

JS-6

October 27, 2014

STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC. V. DAVID ZARIAN ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

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:

(IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND (dkt.
8, filed September 18, 2014)

The Court finds this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed.
R. Civ. P. 78; Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing date of November 3, 2014, is
hereby vacated, and the matter is taken under submission.
I.

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On June 12, 2014, plaintiff Strategic Acquisitions, Inc. (“Strategic”) filed an action
for unlawful detainer against defendants David Zarian, Mojdeh Zarian, and all occupants
in possession of the subject property (collectively, “defendants”) in Los Angeles County
Superior Court. Dkt. 1. Strategic alleges that, on May 19, 2014, it acquired title to
property located at 4060 Alonzo Avenue, Encino, CA 91316 (“the Property”). Id.
Plaintiff further alleges that defendants unlawfully remain in possession of the property,
despite having been properly served with a 3-day notice to quit and deliver up possession
of the Property on June 7, 2014. Id.
Asserting federal question jurisdiction, defendants removed the action to this Court
on September 4, 2014 . Dkt. 1.1 Strategic subsequently filed an ex parte application to
remand the case to state court on September 18, 2014. Dkt. 8. On September 29, 2014,
the Court issued a scheduling notice stating that Strategic’s ex parte application should
have been filed as a noticed motion, construing Strategic’s application as a noticed
motion, and setting the November 3, 2014 hearing date and a corresponding briefing
1

The Court notes that removal was untimely, since it occurred more than 30 days
after the complaint was filed in state court.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

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

2:14-cv-06897-CAS(MANx)

Date

‘O’

JS-6

October 27, 2014

STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC. V. DAVID ZARIAN ET AL.

schedule. Dkt. 9. Defendants have not filed an opposition to Strategic’s motion. Having
carefully considered Strategic’s arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD & DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441, the removal statute, an action is removable to federal
court only if it might have been brought there originally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 28
U.S.C. § 1331 gives federal courts “original jurisdiction” over “all civil actions arising
under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. For
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the question of whether the claim arises under federal law
must be determined by reference to Wells Fargo’s complaint. Franchise Tax Bd. v.
Constr. Laborers Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9-10 (1983). Invoking a federal issue or provision is
not “a password opening federal courts to any state action embracing a point of federal
law.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314
(2005). Instead, a claim “arises under” the laws of the United States only if “a wellpleaded complaint establishes either that (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that
(2) the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question
of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 27-28. As to the second prong, the issue
turns on whether the complaint includes “allegations of federal law that are essential to
the establishment of the claim.” Lippit v. Raymond James Fin. Servs., Inc., 340 F.3d
1033, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003).
Remand may be ordered either for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or for any
defect in removal procedure. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Court strictly construes the
removal statutes against removal jurisdiction, and jurisdiction must be rejected if there is
any doubt as to the right of removal. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992).
The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Although
it is not entirely clear from the notice of removal, defendants appear to contend that
federal question jurisdiction exists either because they have filed federal counterclaims
against Strategic in state court, or because they intend to raise defenses based on federal
law. Not. Removal at 2-3. However, 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); Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass'n v. Bravo,
2013 WL 812705, *1 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2013) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for
unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”). Moreover, “the
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

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

2:14-cv-06897-CAS(MANx)

Date

‘O’

JS-6

October 27, 2014

STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC. V. DAVID ZARIAN ET AL.

existence of a defense based upon federal law is insufficient to support jurisdiction.”
Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); Caterpillar Inc.
v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (“[I]t is now settled law that a case may not be
removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is
anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”) (emphasis in original). A federal counterclaim
similarly cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002).
Because Strategic solely brings an action for unlawful detainer, the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over this case and GRANTS Strategic’s motion to remand.
However, the Court DENIES Strategic’s request for an award of costs and
expenses incurred in connection with defendants’ attempted removal of this action.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3