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