Terra Property Management v. Najer Temple

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles forthwith. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

1
2
3
4

JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. CV 16-07814-MWF (RAOx)

TERRA PROPERTY
MANAGEMENT,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING
FEES OR COSTS

v.
NAJER TEMPLE,

15

Defendant.

16
17

I.

18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19

On August 3, 2016, Plaintiff Terra Property Management (“Plaintiff”) filed

20

an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against

21

Defendant Najer Temple ( “Defendant”). (Notice of Removal (“Removal”) &

22

Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”) and Answer, Dkt. No. 1.)

23

Plaintiff alleges that it is an agent authorized by the owner of the real property in

24

question to enter into contracts and file lawsuits in the owner’s name. (Compl., ¶

25

4.) Plaintiff further alleges that Defendant agreed to rent real property located in

26

Pacoima, California (“the Property”) as a month-to-month tenancy, but that

27

Defendant has failed to pay rent. (Id., ¶¶ 3, 6-7, 10, 17.)

28

///

1

On October 20, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, asserting that

2

this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question and citing 28 U.S.C.

3

§§ 1331 and 1441. (Removal at 1-2.) In addition, Defendant filed an application

4

for in forma pauperis status. (Dkt. No. 3.)

5

II.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

8

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the United States Constitution and

9

federal statutes. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377,

10

114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty to always

11

examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S.

12

500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a

13

case summarily if there is an obvious jurisdictional issue, cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc.

14

v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is

15

entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates

16

dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of

17

subject matter jurisdiction.”

18

remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden of proving that

19

jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986).

20

Further, there is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction. See Gaus v.

21

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

(citations omitted)).

A defendant attempting to

22

As noted above, Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter

23

jurisdiction due to the existence of a federal question and cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,

24

1441. (Removal at 2.) Defendant contends that the state court did not sustain

25

Defendant’s Answer despite the alleged failure of the complaint to comply with

26

requirements of the California Code of Civil Procedure. (Id.) Defendant further

27

argues that “[f]ederal question [jurisdiction] exists because Defendant’s Answer, a

28

///
2

1

pleading[,] depend[s] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s

2

duties under federal law.” (Id.)

3

Section 1441 provides in relevant part that a defendant may remove to

4

federal court a civil action in state court of which the federal court has original

5

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 provides that federal “district

6

courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

7

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331.

8

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the attached

9

complaint and answer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question

10

jurisdiction over the instant matter. Plaintiff could not have brought this action in

11

federal court as Plaintiff does not allege facts supplying federal question (or

12

diversity) jurisdiction, and therefore removal was improper.

13

§ 1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L.

14

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

15

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

See 28 U.S.C.

16

The Court notes that the underlying action is one for unlawful detainer,

17

which arises under and is governed by the laws of the State of California. Thus,

18

there is no federal question apparent on the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint. See, e.g.,

19

Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578,

20

at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under

21

federal law.”); IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA

22

(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to

23

state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint

24

contained only an unlawful detainer claim).

25

Defendant suggests that a federal question is raised by his Answer, but he

26

refers only to provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedure. (Removal at 2.)

27

Regardless, it is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the

28

basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s
3

1

complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only

2

question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393. Thus, even if Defendant’s

3

defense to the unlawful detainer action is based on alleged violations of federal law,

4

that does not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because

5

Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, the court lacks jurisdiction

6

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

7

Although not asserted by Defendant, the Court notes that it also does not

8

have diversity jurisdiction over this action, as the amount in controversy does not

9

exceed the threshold of $75,000.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The amount in

10

controversy is determined from the complaint itself unless it appears to a legal

11

certainty that the claim is worth a different amount than that pled in the complaint.

12

Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 354, 81 S. Ct. 1570, 6 L. Ed. 2d 890

13

(1961); Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007),

14

overruled on other grounds by Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d

15

975, 977, 980-81 (9th Cir. 2013). In filing the action, Plaintiff explicitly limited its

16

demand for damages to less than $10,000.00. (See Compl. at 1.) Because the

17

amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks appears to be below the jurisdictional

18

minimum, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction in this case.

19

///

20

///

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
4

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6
7

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 Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: October 28, 2016
________________________________________

10

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13

Presented by:
/s/

14

________________________________________

15

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5