Del Mar Financial Management, Inc v. Rizal S. Martin et al
Filing
7
ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge George H. Wu. Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 16UN4231. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Case No. CV 17-00730-GW (RAOx)
DEL MAR FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS
v.
RIZAL S. MARTIN and GENARASUSAN A. MARTIN,
Defendants.
17
18
I.
19
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
20
Plaintiff Del Mar Financial Management, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful
21
detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Rizal S. Martin and
22
Genara-Susan A. Martin (“Defendants”) on or about December 29, 2016. Notice of
23
Removal (“Removal”) & Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”)
24
and Demurrer, Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly occupants and former owners
25
of real property located in Carson, California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 2, 4.
26
Plaintiff is the current owner of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.
27
Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on January 30, 2017, invoking the
28
Court’s federal question jurisdiction asserting that Defendants’ Demurrer to the
1
Complaint raises issues under federal law and citing to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1985.1
2
Removal at 1, 7-8. The same day, Defendant Rizal Martin filed an Application to
3
Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. No. 3.
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 1, 7-8.) 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
26
27
28
1
The Notice of Removal also cites to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the federal statute on
diversity of citizenship. However, later in their notice of removal, Defendants
expressly state that removal is not based on diversity of citizenship. See Removal
at 9. Accordingly, the Court does not address the issue of diversity under Section
1332.
2
1
U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have
2
original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or
3
treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331.
4
Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the attached
5
Complaint and Demurrer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question
6
jurisdiction over the instant matter. Plaintiff could not have brought this action in
7
federal court, in that Plaintiff does not allege facts supplying federal question
8
jurisdiction, and therefore, removal was improper.
9
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L.Ed.2d
10
318 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in
11
federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”) (footnote
12
omitted).
13
See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);
First, there is no federal question apparent on the face of Plaintiff’s
14
complaint, which alleges only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See
15
Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578,
16
*2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under
17
federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No.
18
EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010)
19
(remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where
20
plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim).
21
Second, there is no merit to Defendants’ contention that federal question
22
jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ Demurrer raises issues of federal law under
23
42 U.S.C. §§ 1981-1985. Removal at 1, 7-8. It is well settled that a “case may not
24
be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense
25
is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the
26
federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393,
27
107 S. Ct. at 2430. Thus, to the extent Defendants’ defenses to the unlawful
28
detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not
3
1
provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s
2
complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled,
3
the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
4
III.
5
CONCLUSION
6
7
8
9
10
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.
11
12
DATED: February 2, 2017
________________________________________
13
GEORGE H. WU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
Presented by:
________________________________________
ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?