Barbera Management Inc. v. Kris Sharp et al

Filing 6

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT by Judge George H. Wu: This is a simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiff's complaint. The Court thus REMANDS the ac tion to state court forthwith and orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve this order on all parties who have appeared in this action. Case Remanded case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number 15P01633. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: None Present. (gk)

REMAND/JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-03688-GW(RAOx)

Title

Barbera Management, Inc. v. Kris Sharp, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 20, 2015

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE
COURT

On March 3, 2015, Barbera Management Inc, (“Plaintiff”) instituted unlawful detainer proceedings
against Kris Sharp (“Defendant”) in state court. Compl. at 1. “Over three months” earlier, Defendant
allegedly entered into a month-to-month agreement to lease the property located at 1792 Grevelia Street,
South Pasadena, California 91030 (the “Property”) from Plaintiff for $1,450 per month, due on the first day
of every month. Id. Plaintiff served Defendant with a three-day “Notice to Pay Rent or Quit” on February
18, 2015, after Defendant had failed to make $4,350 in rent payments, and instituted unlawful detainer
proceedings after Defendant failed to comply. Id. at 2-3. Defendant filed an Answer to the Complaint based
on defective notice in violation of Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1161(2), which was not sustained. Notice of
Removal ¶¶ 8-9, Docket No. 1. Defendant removed the action to this Court on May 15, 2015. Notice of
Removal at 1. Defendant asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists “because Defendant’s Answer [is]
a pleading [that] depend[s] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal
law.” Id. ¶ 10.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375,
377 (1994). It is this Court’s duty to always examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an obvious
jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003)
(“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a
claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting
internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden
of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir.1986). Further, a
“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 1 of 2

REMAND/JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-03688-GW(RAOx)

Date

Title

May 20, 2015

Barbera Management, Inc. v. Kris Sharp, et al.

Cir. 1992).
Subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s Complaint
herein contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. Compl. at 1. Although
Defendant has only identified purported defenses arising under state law, Defendant nonetheless asserts that
Defendant’s Answer depends on federal law. Notice of Removal ¶¶ 8-10. Importantly, there is no federal
question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal
law. See Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392-93. As a result, Defendant’s reliance on unidentified defenses
under federal law cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. This is a simple state law
unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.
The Court thus REMANDS the action to state court forthwith and orders the Court Clerk promptly
to serve this order on all parties who have appeared in this action.

cc: Pro Se Deft

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 2 of 2