Kiyumars Kalhor v. Inna Phoenix Gore et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Andre Birotte Jr., the Court: (1) REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles, California 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 USC 1447(c); (2) ORDERS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) ORDERS the Clerk to serve copies of this Order on the parties. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

KIYUMARS KALHOR

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 15-07748-AB (FFMx)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

v.
INNA PHOENIX GORE, ANREW
GORE,
Defendants.

16
17

On October 2, 2015, Defendants Inna Phoenix Gore and Andrew Gore, having

18

been sued as a tenants-Defendants in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer

19

action in California state court, filed a Notice of Removal of that action to this Court.

20

(Docket No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court REMANDS this case for

21

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

22

As a routine unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff could not have brought this

23

action in federal court initially because the complaint does not competently allege

24

facts creating subject matter jurisdiction, rendering removal improper. 28 U.S.C.

25

§1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005).

26

First, under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b), this unlawful detainer action does not

27

give rise to a federal question or substantial question of federal law because unlawful

28

detainer “is purely a creature of California law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, 2011
1

1

WL 2194117 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011). Defendants contend that the notice to quit was

2

defective and that therefore the manner in which the unlawful detainer action is being

3

litigated is depriving them of due process. See Notice of Removal 3:9-13. Defendants

4

claim that this circumstance makes removal proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), which

5

provides for removal of a civil action “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot

6

enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil

7

rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.”

8

But Section 1443(1) refers to laws governing racial equality and applies when a

9

statute or authoritative decision announces that claims of the sort asserted are

10

untenable within the state’s judicial system. See State of Wis. v. Glick, 782 F.2d 670,

11

672 (7th Cir. 1986). Section 1443(1) therefore does not apply to this routine unlawful

12

detainer action. Furthermore, Defendants can challenge the alleged defective service

13

by filing a motion to quash in state court, something they claim to have already done.

14

See Notice of Removal 3:5-8. In short, inadequate service of process in a routine

15

unlawful detainer action does not trigger Section 1443(1)’s right of removal.

16

Second, this unlawful detainer action does not give rise to diversity jurisdiction.

17

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). The underlying complaint states that the amount in

18

controversy does not exceed $10,000. Moreover, removal on the basis of diversity

19

jurisdiction is not proper because Defendants in the forum state. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

20

Accordingly, the Court: (1) REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of

21

California, Los Angeles County, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, 111 North Hill Street, Los

22

Angeles, California 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28

23

U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) ORDERS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to the

24

state court; and (3) ORDERS the Clerk to serve copies of this Order on the parties.

25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 6, 2015

_______________________________________
HONORABLE ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
2.