Elmer Brabson et al v. Ann Thomas et al

Filing 7

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that federal question jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, t his action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica Courthouse, Case No. 16R03459. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendants Requests to Proceed In F orma Pauperis (Docket Nos. 3 & 4) are denied as moot. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 16-6394 PA (AGRx)

Title

Elmer Brabson, et al. v. Ann Thomas, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 30, 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 defendants Ann Thomas and Elizabeth
Graham (“Defendants”), on August 25, 2016. In their Complaint, plaintiffs Elmer Brabson and Inez
Brabson, as trustees of the Brabson Revocable Family Trust Dated July 31, 1997, allege a single state
law claim for unlawful detainer. Defendants, who are appearing pro se, assert that this Court has subject
matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts are 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. “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 underlying Complaint contains only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Defendants allege that removal is proper because their Answer “depend[s] on the determination of
Defendant’s [sic] rights and Plaintiff’s [sic] duties under federal law.” Defendants’ allegations
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 16-6394 PA (AGRx)

Date

Title

August 30, 2016

Elmer Brabson, et al. v. Ann Thomas, et al.

concerning Plaintiffs’ potential violations of federal law and their reliance on federal law for a defense
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).
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to meet their 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 Superior Court, Santa Monica Courthouse, Case No.
16R03459. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendants’ Requests to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Nos.
3 & 4) are denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2