1529 Junipero Avenue LLC v. Andrew Grady et al

Filing 6

MINUTES IN CHAMBERS COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that federal question jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 16F02257. See 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Defendants Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot. (remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court in Long Beach, Case number 16F02257)Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (pj)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-4360 PA (AGRx)

Title

1529 Junipero Avenue, LLC v. Andrew Grady

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 22, 2016

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Stephen Montes Kerr

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Andrew Grady (“Defendant”)
on June 17, 2016. In its Complaint, plaintiff 1529 Junipero Avenue, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single
state law claim for unlawful detainer. Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on
the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
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, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against
removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal,
the defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927
(9th Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule,
“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus,
plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 318. Moreover, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense,
including the defense of pre-emption.” Id. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (emphasis in
original). The only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful
pleading,” such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law.
Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, the Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. No federal claim is
alleged. Further, Defendant does not allege that the Complaint contains a federal claim in disguise, or
that the unlawful detainer claim is preempted by federal law. Because the Complaint does not allege a

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 16-4360 PA (AGRx)

Date

Title

June 22, 2016

1529 Junipero Avenue, LLC v. Andrew Grady

federal claim, the Notice of Removal’s invocation of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 is insufficient to establish the
Court’s federal question jurisdiction.
Additionally, Defendant asserts that a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a
pleading depend on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.”
(Notice of Removal ¶ 10.) Defendant’s allegations concerning his rights and Plaintiff’s duties under
federal law do not constitute a proper basis for removal, as neither a federal defense nor an actual or
anticipated federal counterclaim forms a basis for removal. See, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.
49, 61-62, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009); Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at
2430 (“[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the
defense of pre-emption, even if the defense is anticipated . . . and even if both parties concede that the
federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”) (emphasis in original).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that federal
question jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this
action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 16F02257. See 28
U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as
moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2