Po Chih Tseng v. Jack Siadek et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. 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 (remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court in Long Beach, Case number 16F06194) Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (pj)

1
2
3
4

JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 17-00575-MWF (RAOx)

PO CHIH TSENG,

v.

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

JACK SIADEK and MONICA
SIADEK,
Defendants.

16
17

I.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Po Chih Tseng (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in Los
Angeles County Superior Court against Jack Siadek and Monica Siadek
(“Defendants”) on or about December 27, 2016. Notice of Removal (“Removal”)
& Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”) and Notice of Demurrer,
Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly tenants of real property located in Torrance,
California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 1, 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the
property. Id. at ¶ 4.
Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on January 24, 2017, invoking the
Court’s federal question jurisdiction asserting that Defendants’ Demurrer to the

1

Complaint raises issues under federal law. Removal at 2. The same day,

2

Defendants filed Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt.

3

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 assert that this Court has subject matter

22

jurisdiction due to the existence of a federal question. (Removal at 2.) Section

23

1441 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil

24

action in state court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28

25

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

26

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 Demurrer 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’ contention that federal question

19

jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ Demurrer raises issues of federal law.

20

Removal at 2. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on

21

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

22

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

23

question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430. Thus, to

24

the extent Defendants’ defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged

25

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

26

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

27

question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28

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 30, 2017
________________________________________

10

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15

Presented by:
________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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