CFM Properties Management LLC, A CA. LTD. LIAB. CO v. Ella Avery Smothers

Filing 15

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING THE CASE TO STATE COURT 11 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson Ms. Smothers failed to carry her burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.Therefore, the Court REMANDS this case to the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles. (remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court in Los Angeles, Case number 14U16093 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (pj)

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

2:15-cv-00041-SVW-PJW

Title

CFM Properties Management, LLC v. Ella Avery Smothers

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 27, 2015

STEPHEN V. WILSON, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul M. Cruz

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING THE CASE TO STATE COURT
[11]

Generally, removal jurisdiction is disfavored. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
Cir. 1992). But it is proper if the case could have been filed in federal court originally. 28
U.S.C. § 1441; Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002). The
removing party bears the burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction. Gaus, 980 F.2d at
566.
Defendant Ella Smothers premised removal on federal question jurisdiction. (Doc. 1,
Notice of Removal). According to the well-pleaded complaint rule, a federal question must
inhere from the plaintiff’s claims for relief. ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dept. of Health
and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 113 (9th Cir. 2000). This case, however, is an unlawful
detainer action governed by California law, and it raises no apparent issues of federal law.
Therefore, the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case and must remand it to state
court. See, e.g., Matthew 01 Inv., LLC v. Bloom, No. CV 15-15-150-SVW-PLA, 2015 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 5641, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2015) (remanding a similar unlawful detainer case);

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

PMC

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

2:15-cv-00041-SVW-PJW

Date

Title

January 27, 2015

CFM Properties Management, LLC v. Ella Avery Smothers

Burbank Blvd. Apts. Owner LLC v. Cabessa, No. CV 14-9902 SVW (AJWx), 2015 US Dist.
LEXIS 3602, at *1-2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2015) (same).
Instead of arguing that the complaint raises a federal question, Ms. Smothers submits that
she “intends to file a Complaint against Plaintiff in United States District Court against Plaintiff
and other co-conspirators’ [sic] for RICO remedies authorized by the federal statutes at 18
U.S.C. [§] 1961 et seq.” (Doc. 1, Notice of Removal). First, her intent to file a federal lawsuit is
immaterial: under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look at the well-pled complaint; they
do not foray into the metaphysical world of a litigant’s intent. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,
482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”). Second, a separate civil
suit, even if filed, would have no bearing on whether this case is removable. See id. Third,
jurisdiction still would be improper if Ms. Smothers alleged a RICO violation as a counterclaim
in this case. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (“Nor can federal jurisdiction rest
upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.”). And fourth, removal is improper to the extent Ms.
Smothers contends that her RICO allegations form some kind of defense. Franchise Tax Bd. v.
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983) (“[A] case may not be removed to
federal court on the basis of a federal defense.”).
Ms. Smothers failed to carry her burden of establishing subject-matter jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court REMANDS this case to the California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles.1

1

In its ex parte application, CFM Properties makes passing reference to an
attorneys fee award. (Doc. 11). A court, in its discretion, may award fees under
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). But CFM Properties’ counsel failed to specify the fees
incurred in moving to remand. Therefore, the Court denies CFM Properties
request for fees.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2

PMC