Shams Akhtar v. Ahshan Mohiuddin

Filing 13

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT by Judge George H. Wu. This is a state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented by Plaintiff's unlawful detainer complaint. The Court thus REMANDS the action to state court and orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve this order on all parties who have appeared in this action. Case remanded to Superior Court of California at Norwalk Courthouse, Case number 15UN2923 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mailed 1-6-16) (lom)

REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 15-9398-GW(JPRx)

Title

Shams Akhtar v. Ahshan Mohiuddin

Present: The Honorable

Date

January 6, 2016

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 August 25, 2015, Shams Akhtar (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in state court
against Ahsan Mohiuddin (“Defendant”). See Notice of Removal at 14-16 of 21, Docket No. 1 (case
docket for state court action). Proof of service as to Defendant was filed on September 18, 2015. Id.
An amended complaint was filed on October 7, 2015. Id. Defendant, proceeding in pro per, removed
the action to this Court on December 4, 2015.1 Defendant asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists
because certain “actions of the [state] court and [P]laintiff constitute actions taken under the ‘color of
state law’ to deprive this Def[endant] of his due process of law guaranteed by the 14th Amendment of
the U.S. Constitution.” Id. at 2:10-14. Defendant also asserts that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction under 39 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. and the Americans with Disabilities Act, apparently because
Plaintiff has failed to “provide a lock & key enclosed mail box” to Defendant and failed to “take
corrective measures in the parking facility for [Defendant] after [Defendant] became (partially)
disabled.” Id. at 2:15-22.
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
1

Given this timeline, it appears that Defendant’s removal was untimely. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b) (“The
notice of removal of a civil action or proceeding shall be filed within 30 days after the receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of the initial pleading setting forth the claim for relief upon which such
action or proceeding is based.”).

:
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 15-9398-GW(JPRx)

Date

Title

January 6, 2016

Shams Akhtar v. Ahshan Mohiuddin

(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 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). Here,
Plaintiff brought an action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim, against Defendant. As indicated
herein, Defendant contends that federal jurisdiction exists in light of on various purported counterclaims.
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 id. at 392-93. As a result, Defendant’s reliance on
purported counterclaims arising under federal law cannot serve as the basis for federal question
jurisdiction. This is a state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented by
Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint.
The Court thus REMANDS the action to state court and orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve
this order on all parties who have appeared in this action.

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

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 2 of 2