Red Curb Investments LLC v. Maria Flores et al

Filing 7

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS ORDERED that pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number 15F00481. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

RED CURB INVESTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13

v.
MARIA FLORES, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-2447-CAS (PJWx)
[PROPOSED] ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION TO LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

Before the Court is an unlawful detainer action that Defendant

17

Maria Flores removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

18

the following reasons, the case is summarily remanded back to that

19

court.

20

For

In January 2015, Plaintiff sued Defendant in the Los Angeles

21

County Superior Court in what appears to be a routine unlawful

22

detainer action for non-payment of rent.

23

removed the action to this court.

24

it appears that Defendant is arguing that there is diversity

25

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that the case is a federal one

26

because Plaintiff allegedly violated Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

27

11 in bringing the unlawful detainer action.

28

On April 2, 2015, Defendant

Although it is not entirely clear,

1

Generally speaking, federal district courts lack subject matter

2

jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions like this one.

Unlawful

3

detainer actions do not involve federal issues and a defendant cannot

4

introduce one by raising it in her defense and/or a counter-claim.

5

See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (“Federal

6

jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense,

7

or rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”) (internal

8

citations omitted).

9

28 U.S.C. § 1332 because, even if Defendant could establish that the

Further, there is no diversity jurisdiction under

10

parties are diverse, it is clear from the Complaint that the amount in

11

controversy is less than $10,000.

12

remove the action to this court.

13

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

As a result, Defendant cannot
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 1447(c), this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California,

16

County of Los Angeles, 275 Magnolia, Long Beach, CA 90802; (2) the

17

clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court;

18

and (3) the clerk shall serve copies of the Order on the parties.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

DATED: April 13, 2015
_____________________________
CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
Presented by:
25
26
27

_______________________________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28

2