Advanced Group 92-00005 LP v. Adrian Walker et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Case number 16F05272 by Judge Stephen V. Wilson: 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 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Please refer to the Court's order for specifics. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (cr)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

1
J

/~

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IO
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
19

Case No. CV 16-8805 SVW (SSx)

ADVANCED GROUP 92-5, LP,

ORDER SUNIlKARZLY RE1~iNDING

v.
ADRIAN WALKER, DOES 1 TO 10,

1~ROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION
I

Defendants.

15
16
17
18

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

19
20
21
22
23

On November 28, 2016, Defendant Adrian Walker, having been
sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in
California state court, filed a Notice Of Removal of that action
to this Court and also presented an application to proceed in forma

29
pauperis.
25

The

Court

has

denied

the

latter

application

under

separate cover because the action was not properly removed.

To

26

prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the

27

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

28

1

Simply stated, this action could

not have been originally )

2

filed in federal court because the complaint does not competently

3

allege

4

jurisdiction,

5

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

6

U.S. 546, 563 (2005).

facts

supporting
and

diversity

either

therefore

removal. is

or

federal-question ,

improper.

28

U.S.C.

Defendant's Notice of Removal asserts that

7

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

8

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

9

duties

under

federal law."

(Notice

Of

Removal at

3).

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

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. IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23

DATED: ~~~~/
ST HEN V. ILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26 ',
27
28
2