GW San Diego Properties LLC and or its successors and or assignees in interest v. Moreno et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Accordingly, removal based on federal question jurisdiction under § 1441 is improper. The Court hereby REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 14P09951. Case remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court at Pasadena Courthouse, Case number 14P09951 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lom) Modified on 3/13/2015 (lom). (mailed3/13/15)

O
JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

GW SAN DIEGO PROPERTIES, LLC,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 2:15-cv-01531-ODW(MAN)

v.

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO

14

ANTONIO P. MORENO; DOES 1–10,

LOS ANGELES COUNTY

15

inclusive,

SUPERIOR COURT

16

Defendants.

17

On March 3, 2015, Defendant Antonio P. Moreno removed this action from Los

18

Angeles Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.) In his Notice of Removal, Moreno alleges that

19

“[t]he complaint presents federal questions” and he seeks to raise a federal statutory

20

defense, so therefore this Court has federal question jurisdiction. (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.) The

21

Complaint asserts a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. (ECF No. 1, Ex. A.)

22

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil

23

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Whether

24

a claim “arises under” federal law must be determined by reference to the “well-

25

pleaded complaint.” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation

26

Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983). Since a defendant may remove a case under 28 U.S.C. §

27

1441(b) only if the claim could originally have been filed in federal court, whether

28

removal jurisdiction exists must be determined by reference to the well-pleaded

1

complaint. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986). Thus,

2

it is not enough for removal purposes that a federal question may arise during the

3

litigation in connection with a defense or counterclaim. Rivet v. Regions Bank of La.,

4

522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (“A defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded

5

statement of his or her claim.”).

6

Plaintiff GW San Diego Properties’ Complaint does not, on its face, raise a

7

federal question. It states a single claim for unlawful detainer, which is solely a state

8

law cause of action. A single claim for unlawful detainer does not invoke this Court’s

9

jurisdiction. See Canterbury Lots 68, LLC v. De La Torre, No. 13-cv-00712, 2013

10

WL 781974, *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2013) (remanding action where complaint only

11

raised a single cause of action for unlawful detainer); Golden Union Properties, LLC

12

v. Amesquita, No. 10-cv-09607, 2011 WL 321095, *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011)

13

(remanding case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where complaint contained

14

only an unlawful detainer claim); IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. 09-cv-

15

02337, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (same); Galileo Financial v.

16

Miin Sun Park, No. 09-cv-1660, 2009 WL 3157411, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009)

17

(“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is

18

purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no

19

basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”)

20

Accordingly, removal based on federal question jurisdiction under § 1441 is

21

improper. The Court hereby REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior

22

Court, case number 14P09951. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

March 13, 2015

26
27
28

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2