Pama IV Properties LP v. Vivian Lee et al

Filing 7

ORDER by Judge Dean D. Pregerson. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, 275 Magnolia Ave., Long Beach, CA 90802, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Case number 14F10645 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (shb)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PAMA IV PROPERTIES LP, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. VIVIAN LEE, DOES 1 through 10, Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. CV 15-494-DDP (MANx) ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court summarily, because it was removed improperly. 19 On January 22, 2015, Vivian Lee (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal of an 20 unlawful detainer action commenced by a complaint filed against Defendant on November 21 12, 2014 (the “Complaint”), in Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 14F10645. 22 Defendant also presented an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Complaint 23 alleges what appears to be a routine state law unlawful detainer claim against Defendant 24 (the “Unlawful Detainer Action”). The Court has denied the in forma pauperis application 25 under separate cover, because the Unlawful Detainer Action was not properly removed. 26 To prevent the Unlawful Detainer Action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court 27 issues this Order to remand the action to state court. 28 Defendant alleges that the Complaint is removable, because this Court has original 1 jurisdiction over the Unlawful Detainer Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant 2 asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists, because: Defendant filed a Demurrer in the 3 Unlawful Detainer Action based on the argument that plaintiff did not comply with the 4 notice requirements of California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2); the Demurrer was 5 not sustained; and a resolution of the California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2) issue 6 raised by the Demurrer requires a determination of Defendant’s rights and plaintiff’s duties 7 under federal law. To remove a case based upon federal question jurisdiction, however, 8 the federal issue or claim must arise in the underlying complaint which the defendant seeks 9 to remove. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S. 10 Ct. 3229 (1986) (“the question whether a claim ‘arises under’ federal law must be 11 determined by reference to the ‘well-pleaded complaint,’ and “the question for removal 12 jurisdiction must” be determined based upon the complaint’s allegations). “A defense that 13 raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.” Id. Even if 14 Defendant could establish that plaintiff violated California Code of Civil Procedure § 15 1161(2) in connection with the rental property that is the subject of the Unlawful Detainer 16 Action, this would be a defense or cross-claim in the state action and/or provide the basis 17 for a separate lawsuit. Defendant’s allegations do not confer federal question jurisdiction 18 over the Unlawful Detainer Action. 19 Defendant does not contend that diversity jurisdiction exists. The Complaint shows 20 that the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold of 21 $75,000. Indeed, the Complaint expressly alleges that the amount demanded “does not 22 exceed $10,000.” Thus, diversity jurisdiction is lacking. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 23 The Complaint does not allege any basis for federal subject-matter jurisdiction, and 24 thus, there is no basis for concluding that the Unlawful Detainer Action could have been 25 brought in federal court in the first place. Therefore, removal was improper. 28 U.S.C. 26 § 1441; see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S.Ct. 2611 27 (2005). 28 -2- 1 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior 2 Court of California, Los Angeles County, 275 Magnolia Ave., Long Beach, CA 90802, for 3 lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk shall send 4 a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk shall serve copies of this 5 Order on the parties. 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 DATED: 1/28/2015 9 10 11 HON. DEAN D. PREGERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?