Eagle Vista Equities LLC v. John D Ellis et al

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND REMANDING CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John A. Kronstadt remanding case to Case Terminated. Made JS-6. See Order for Specifics. (bp) (Additional attachment(s) added on 11/13/2015: # 1 Remand Letter) (bp).

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

EAGLE VISTA EQUITIES, LLC,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.
JOHN D. ELLIS,

14

Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. CV 15-8420-JAK (PJWx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND
REMANDING CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT

15
16

Before the Court is the motion of Defendant John D. Ellis to

17

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).

18

motion is DENIED and the action is remanded to the Los Angeles

19

Superior Court (“LASC”).

20

For the following reasons, the

On October 28, 2015, Defendant, proceeding as a self-represented

21

litigant, lodged a Notice of Removal, accompanied by a request to

22

proceed IFP. The action is one for unlawful detainer that was pending

23

in the LASC. The Court has denied the IFP application under separate

24

cover.

25

determination of federal jurisdiction, the matter is remanded to the

26

LASC.

27
28

To prevent any potential confusion or undue delay as to the

Simply stated, because Plaintiff could not have brought this
action in federal court, there is no basis to remove it.

To the

1

extent that Defendant is seeking to assert jurisdiction here by

2

raising federal claims as part of an affirmative defense, he cannot do

3

so. Only the claims raised in the Complaint are considered in

4

determining whether there is federal jurisdiction. Phillips Petroleum

5

Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127 (1974) (federal questions must

6

be disclosed on the face of the complaint as a defendant’s reply is

7

not a basis for federal jurisdiction); Moore-Thomas v. Alaska

8

Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (federal law

9

defense does not create federal jurisdiction if the complaint on its

10
11

face does not present federal question).
Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action does not raise a federal

12

question.

13

Plaintiff and Defendant are both citizens of California and the amount

14

in controversy is less than $10,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

15

reasons, the matter must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction. 28

16

U.S.C. § 1441(a); Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S.

17

546, 563 (2005).

18

See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Nor is there diversity jurisdiction;

For these

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter is

19

REMANDED to the LASC, at its Mosk Courthouse, 110 N. Hill St., Los

20

Angeles, California, 90012; and(2) the clerk shall send a

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2

1

certified copy of this Order to the LASC and serve copies on the

2

parties.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

DATED: November 12, 2015

6
7
8

JOHN A. KRONSTADT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

C:\Users\akeifer\AppData\Local\Temp\notesC7A056\~2939893.wpd

26
27
28

3