Pacifico Partners 3 LLC v. Danny Dongki Kim et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER PLAINTIFFS EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REMAND ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (dkt. 6, filed March 16, 2015) by Judge Christina A. Snyder: Because federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court GRANTS plaintiffs ex parte application to remand this action to Los Angeles County Superior Court 6 . Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court in Los Angeles 15U00060. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (pj)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

‘O’

Date

JS-6

Case No.

2:15-CV- 01792 -CAS(PLAx)

Title

PACIFICO PARTNERS 3 LLC V. DANNY DONGKI KIM, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

April 6, 2015

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers) PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO
REMAND ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR
COURT (dkt. 6, filed March 16, 2015)

INTRODUCTION

On January 6, 2015, plaintiff Pacifico Partners 3, LLC filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Danny
Dongki Kim and Sarah Myongsun Kim for possession of property located at 1111 S.
Grand Ave. #701, Los Angeles, CA 90015. Dkt. 1. The complaint alleges damages of
less than $10,000. Id. On March 11, 2015, defendants removed the action to this Court
on the basis of purported federal question jurisdiction. Id. Defendants allege that
jurisdiction in this Court is proper because the unlawful detainer will deprive them of
property without sufficient due process protections.
Plaintiff filed an ex parte application to remand the action to Superior Court on
March 16, 2015. Dkt. 6. On March 20, 2015, the Court issued an order for defendants to
show cause by March 27, 2015 as to why this lawsuit should not be remanded. Dkt. 8.
Defendants have not responded to the Court’s order. Having carefully considered
plaintiff’s arguments, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
II.

DISCUSSION

Removal is proper where the federal courts would have had original jurisdiction
over an action filed in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts recognize a “strong
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

JS-6

Case No.

2:15-CV- 01792 -CAS(PLAx)

April 6, 2015

Title

PACIFICO PARTNERS 3 LLC V. DANNY DONGKI KIM, ET AL.

presumption” against removal jurisdiction and place the burden on the removing
defendant to demonstrate that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “If at any time before final judgment it appears
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). In general, a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction where
a case presents a claim arising under federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”), or
where the plaintiffs and defendants are residents of different states and the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 (“diversity jurisdiction”). See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Nat’l
Trust Co. v. Galindo, 2011 WL 662324, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (explaining the
two types of jurisdiction).
Whether federal question jurisdiction exists is governed by the “well-pleaded
complaint rule.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule,
the federal question “must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the
answer.” Gully v. First Nat’l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936); see also
Phillips Petrol. Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127–28 (1974). To the extent that
defendant has attempted to create subject matter jurisdiction by alleging a federal
defense, such attempts are unavailing because a federal defense is not part of a plaintiff’s
claim. See Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (explaining that a
defense “does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint and, therefore, does not
authorize removal to federal court”). Therefore, federal jurisdiction may not be based on
an anticipated defense created by federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers
Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983); see Cal. Equity Mgmt. Grp., Inc. v.
Jiminez , 2013 WL 1748051, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 23, 2013) (“[A] defendant cannot
create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or raising defenses.”)
(remanding unlawful detainer action); OP Dev., Inc. v. Pascal , 2011 WL 3687636, at *2
(E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2011) (“Defendant's attempt at creating federal subject matter
jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed.”).
It does not appear that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case. First,
it is settled that “[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state
court.” Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D.
Cal. July 27, 2011); see also Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854,
at *2 (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

‘O’

JS-6

Case No.

2:15-CV- 01792 -CAS(PLAx)

April 6, 2015

Title

PACIFICO PARTNERS 3 LLC V. DANNY DONGKI KIM, ET AL.

is purely a matter of state law.”). Here, the only claim plaintiff asserts is for unlawful
detainer. Second, although defendants’ notice of removal cites the Seventh and
Fourteenth Amendments as potential sources of a defense, as explained above, such a
defense cannot support federal question jurisdiction.
III.

CONCLUSION

Because federal subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the Court GRANTS
plaintiff’s ex parte application to remand this action to Los Angeles County Superior
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 3 of 3