Mayda Tichakmakjian v. Taquawania L. Davis et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case Number 16U12889, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs 3 , 4 are DENIED as moot. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) (gk)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. CV 17-00049-CAS (RAOx)

MAYDA TCHAKMAKJIAN,

v.

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

TAQUAWANIA L. DAVIS,
NIKEYA D. LONGINO,
aka Sindro N. Longino, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff Mayda Tchakmakjian (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action

21

in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Taquawania L. Davis, Nikeya D.

22

Longino, also known as Sindro N. Longino, and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”) on or

23

about November 3, 2016. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) & Attached Complaint

24

for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”) and Answer, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are

25

allegedly tenants of real property located in Los Angeles, California (“the

26

property”). Compl., ¶¶ 1, 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the property. Id. at ¶ 4.

27
28

Defendants Davis and Longino filed a Notice of Removal on January 4,
2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction asserting that Defendants’

1

Answer to the Complaint raises issues under federal law. Removal at 2. The same

2

day, Defendants Davis and Longino filed Applications to Proceed Without

3

Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION

6

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

7

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

8

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

9

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject

10

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

11

163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

12

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,

13

336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an

14

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

15

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting

16

internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to

17

federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

18

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption”

19

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th

20

Cir. 1992).

21

As noted above, Defendants Davis and Longino assert that this Court has

22

subject matter jurisdiction due to the existence of a federal question. (Removal at

23

2.) Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal

24

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

25

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

26

have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or

27

treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331.

28

///
2

1

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

2

Complaint and Answer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question

3

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

4

federal court, in that Plaintiff does not allege facts supplying federal question

5

jurisdiction, and therefore removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C. 1441(a);

6

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d

7

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

8

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

9

omitted).

10

First, there is no federal question apparent on the face of Plaintiff’s

11

complaint, which alleges only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See

12

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

13

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

14

federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No.

15

EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010)

16

(remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where

17

plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim).

18

Second, there is no merit to Defendants Davis and Longino’s contention that

19

federal question jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ Answer raises issues of

20

federal law. Removal at 2-3. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to

21

federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated

22

in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense

23

is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430.

24

Thus, to the extent Defendants’ defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based

25

on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for

26

federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not

27

present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks

28

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
3

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 Defendants’ Applications to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: January 9, 2017
________________________________________

10

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12

Presented by:

13

________________________________________

14

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4