Tamarack A&S Properties v. Chrisley Zephr

Filing 6

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: The Complaint in this action only states a single claim for unlawful detainer. Such a claim is governed by state law. Thus, even assuming that Defendant intends to raise federal law as a defense to this claim, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. The Court hereby remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 14R11675. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: None. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)

JS-6

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

CV 15-192 PA (JEMx)

Title

Tamarack A&S Properties v. Chrisley Zephr

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 15, 2015

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

None

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Chrisley Zephr (“Defendant”)
on January 9, 2015. (Docket No. 1.) Plaintiff Tamarack A&S Properties’ (“Plaintiff”) Complaint for
unlawful detainer was originally filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Defendant is appearing
pro se.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be
removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The “burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction
is on the party seeking removal.” Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.) Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir.
1999).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under this rule,
“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). The
only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,”
such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v.
First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F. 2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
In the Notice of Removal, Plaintiff asserts that the case is removable based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Plaintiff argues that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depending on
the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law [sic].” This argument is
not entirely clear, but even if Defendant intends to raise federal law as a defense to Plaintiff’s claim for
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

CV 15-192 PA (JEMx)

Date

Title

January 15, 2015

Tamarack A&S Properties v. Chrisley Zephr

unlawful detainer, the adoption of such a defense does not provide grounds for this Court to exercise
federal question jurisdiction. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal
law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court . . . .”). The Complaint in
this action only states a single claim for unlawful detainer. Such a claim is governed by state law.
Thus, even assuming that Defendant intends to raise federal law as a defense to this claim, there is no
basis for federal question jurisdiction.
The Court hereby remands this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No.
14R11675. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2