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)

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-