Francisco Vega v. Mario Sanchez et al

Filing 8

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge S. James Otero. IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 275 Magnolia Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Case remanded to Superior Court of California Los Angeles County, Case number 16F03053 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mailed 8/25/16.) (lom)

1

August 25, 2016.

2

VC
P

3
4
JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

Case No. CV 16-6017 SJO (SSx)

FRANCISCO VEGA,

ORDER SUHIl~lARILY REMANDING

v.
MARIO SANCHEZ, JAMIE SANCHEZ,
DOES 1 TO 10,

IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state
court summarily because Defendant removed it improperly.

20
21

On August 11, 2016, Defendants Mario and Jamie Sanchez, having

22

been sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action

23

in California state court, filed a Notice Of Removal of that action

24

to this Court and also presented applications to proceed in forma

25

pauperis.

26

separate cover because the action was not properly removed.

27

prevent the

28

Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.

The

Court

action

has

from

denied

remaining

the

in

latter

applications

under

jurisdictional limbo,

To
the

1

Simply stated, this action could not have been originally )

2

filed in federal court because the complaint does not competently

3

allege

facts

!
G
jurisdiction,

supporting
and

either

therefore

diversity

removal

is

or

federal-question

improper.

28

U.S.C.

~
~ § 1441(a), see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545
6

U.S. 546, 563 (2005).

Defendants' Notice of Removal asserts that

7

"
[f]ederal question exists because Defendant's Answer, a pleading

8

depend on the determination of Defendant's rights and Plaintiff's

9

duties under federal law."

(Notice Of Removal at 2).

These

10

allegations are inadequate to confer federal question jurisdiction.

11

See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804,

12

808 (1986) ("A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate

13

to confer federal jurisdiction.").

14
15 I

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED

16

to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 275

17

Magnolia Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802, for lack of subject matter

18

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~ 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a

19

certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk

20

serve copies of this Order on the parties.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24
25
P
~:~

DATED:

August 25, 2016.

S. JAMES OTERO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
E