Quincy Price v. Erika McGee et al

Filing 12

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II : Rremanding case to LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT,110 NORTH GRAND AVENUE, LOS ANGELES, CA., Case number 15U02888 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lc)

1
2
3
4
5

JS-6

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

QUINCY PRICE,

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
ERIKA MCGEE,
14
15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-4591-ODW (PJWx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY
REMOVED ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT

Before the Court is an unlawful detainer action that Defendant

18

Erika McGee removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

For

19

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

20

court.
In March 2015, Plaintiff Quincy Price filed an unlawful detainer

21
22

action against Defendant Erika McGee in the Los Angeles County

23

Superior Court, claiming that Defendant owed him $3,100 in past-due

24

rent.

25

arguing that there was federal question jurisdiction because the

26

resolution of her answer turned on questions on federal law.

27
28

On June 17, 2015, Defendant removed the action to this court,

Generally speaking, federal district courts lack subject matter
jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions like this one because they

1

are grounded in state, not federal, law and do not become federal

2

cases when a defendant raises a federal question as an affirmative

3

defense or counterclaim.

4

(2009) (“Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or

5

anticipated defense. . .[or] rest upon an actual or anticipated

6

counterclaim.”) (internal citations omitted).

7

from the face of the Complaint that there is no diversity jurisdiction

8

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

9

diversity, the amount in controversy is less than $10,000.

See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60

Further, it is clear

As a

10

result, Defendant’s removal of the action was improper and the case

11

will be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

12

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567

13

(9th Cir. 1992).

14

See

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

110 North Grand Ave., Los Angeles, CA 90012; (2) the clerk shall send

17

a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the clerk

18

shall serve copies of the Order on the parties.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED: June 24, 2015__________________

21

_____________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
Presented by:
23
24
25

______________________________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

C:\Users\senglish\Desktop\E McGee.wpd

2