Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB v. Jeannie B Hobert et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Case remanded to Superior Court of California at Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Case number 5U15056 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Mailed 2/10/16) (lom)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12

WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY FSB,

13

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

JEANNIE B HOBERT, et al.,

16

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 16-0655 FMO (ASx)

ORDER

17
18
19

On January 29, 2016, defendant Jeanie Hobert (“defendant”), having been sued by

20

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, not in its individual capacity but solely as Trustee for the

21

Primestar-H Fund I Trust (“plaintiff”) in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in

22

California state court, filed a Notice of Removal of that action on federal question jurisdiction

23

grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. (See Notice of Removal of Action (“NOR”) at

24

2-3).

25

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized

26

by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114

27

S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears

28

affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n. 3, 126

1

S.Ct. 1854, 1861 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before

2

proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 583, 119

3

S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H

4

Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 1244 (2006).

5

“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court

6

must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” Syngenta

7

Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32, 123 S.Ct. 366, 369 (2002) (internal quotation

8

marks omitted). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes, unless

9

otherwise stated, are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.1 See id. Unless otherwise

10

expressly provided by Congress, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district

11

courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the

12

defendants, to the district court[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252

13

(9th Cir. 2013) (same). A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is

14

proper. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (per

15

curiam) (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the

16

removing defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong

17

presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of

18

establishing that removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, if there is any

19

doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts

20

in favor of remanding the action to state court. See Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction

21

must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”).

22

“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that

23

provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies

24

in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at 33, 123 S.Ct. at 370. Failure to do

25
26
27
28

1

Given Congress’s intent to facilitate adjudication of certain class actions in federal court, an
“antiremoval presumption” does not exist in cases removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). See Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Company, LLC v.
Owens, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
2

1

so requires that the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and.

2

. . the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc.

3

v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). Indeed, “[i]f at any time before final

4

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

5

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n. 2

6

(9th Cir. 1988) (“It is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a

7

waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the

8

responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.”); Washington v. United Parcel

9

Serv., Inc., 2009 WL 1519894, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (a district court may remand an action where

10

the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction either by motion or sua sponte).

11

The court’s review of the NOR and the attached state court Complaint makes clear that this

12

court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiff could not

13

have originally brought this action in federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The

14

state court complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, (see NOR at 36-382

15

(Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer)), and discloses no federal statutory or constitutional

16

question. (See, generally, id.); see also Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, 2010 WL 4916578, *2

17

(C.D. Cal. 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted);

18

see also lndymac Fed. Bank., F.S.B. v. Ocampo, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“No

19

federal claim is alleged in the Complaint,” where “[t]he Complaint contains a single cause of action

20

for unlawful detainer.”).

21

To the extent defendants’ defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged

22

violations of federal law, (see NOR at 2-5), those defenses do not provide a basis for federal

23

question jurisdiction. It is well-settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the

24

basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and

25

even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”

26

Caterpillar, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2430 (1987).

27
28

2

Page citations are to the ECF-generated page numbers.
3

1

In short, there is no subject matter jurisdiction.

2

This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or

3

submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis.

4

CONCLUSION

5

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that:

6

1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of

7

California for the County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill St., Los Angeles, CA 90012, for lack of

8

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

9
10

2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court.
Dated this 10th day of February, 2016.

11

/s/
Fernando M. Olguin
United States District Judge

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4