HMMY Property Mangement, Corp. v. Charles Sutton II et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

1

AUG 31 2016

2
3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

vdr
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

4
5

JS-6

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HMMY PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT CORP.,

12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 16-06387-FMO (RAOx)

Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
CHARLES SUTTON II, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

I.

18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19

On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff HMMY Property Management Corp. (“Plaintiff”)

20

filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against

21

Charles Sutton, Casey Berick, and Does 1 to 10 (collectively, “Defendants”).

22

(Notice of Removal (“Removal”) & Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer

23

(“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of the real property

24

located in Los Angeles, California (“the property”). (Compl., ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff

25

further alleges that Defendants have failed to pay rent due and owing for the

26

property. (See id., ¶¶ 6, 7.)

27
28

On August 25, 2016, Defendant Charles Sutton II (hereinafter, “Defendant”)
filed a Notice of Removal, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

1

(Removal at pp. 2-3.) In addition, Defendant filed a request to proceed in forma

2

pauperis. (Dkt. No. 3.) However, after reviewing the Notice of Removal and the

3

accompanying documents, the Court determines that it lacks subject matter

4

jurisdiction over this matter.

5

II.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

8

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. Kokkonen

9

v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391

10

(1994). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions,

11

and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

12

jurisdiction. Id. Further, a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction

13

exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).

14

After reviewing the Notice of Removal and the accompanying documents, it

15

is clear that this Court lacks federal question jurisdiction over this matter.

16

Defendant claims that this Court has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

17

§ 1331, because defenses to the unlawful detainer “depend on the determination of

18

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Removal at p. 3, ¶ 8.)

19

However, defenses and counterclaims do not give rise to federal question

20

jurisdiction. “A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal

21

defense, . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even

22

if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case.”

23

Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14

24

(1983); see also Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425,

25

96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been

26

filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”)

27
28

Whether a claim “arises under” federal law must be determined by reference
to the “well-pleaded complaint.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9-10. From the
2

1

face of the Complaint, the only claim raised is an unlawful detainer, which is a

2

California state law action. (Compl. at ¶ 5-7.) No federal question is presented.

3

See, e.g., Nguyen v. Hutchis, 2013 WL 4500574, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 21, 2013);

4

Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003)

5

(“An unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law

6

and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction.”).

7

III.

8

CONCLUSION

9
10
11
12
13

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

DATED: August 31, 2016
______________/s/__________________________

16

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21

Presented by:
________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3