HVH Inc. v. Rocio Melgarejo et al

Filing 5

MINUTE (In Chambers): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-17-2244 MWF (SHSx)
Title:
HVH, Inc. v. Rocio Melgarejo, et al.

Date: March 27, 2017

Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District Judge
Deputy Clerk:
Rita Sanchez

Court Reporter:
Not Reported

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant:
None Present

Proceedings (In Chambers): ORDER REMANDING CASE TO CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT
The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court
for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in a
state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of
Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002)
(quoting Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where
Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed
against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667
(9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any
civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States
have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252
(9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006);
Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. “Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to
remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [the removing defendant] must
demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.”
Syngenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be
remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and . . . the district
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-17-2244 MWF (SHSx)
Title:
HVH, Inc. v. Rocio Melgarejo, et al.

Date: March 27, 2017

court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n v.
Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). “If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case
shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). It is “elementary that the subject matter
jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime
by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the
trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th
Cir. 1988).
From a review of the Notice of Removal and the state court records provided, it
is evident that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case, for the
following reasons.
First, no basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified.
Second, the Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Rather, the
underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and governed by
the laws of the State of California.
Third, removing defendant(s) asserts that the affirmative defenses at issue give
rise to federal question jurisdiction, but “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends
solely on the plaintiffs claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those
claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213
F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). An “affirmative defense based on federal law” does
not “render[ ] an action brought in state court removable.” Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d
422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994). A “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a
federal defense ... even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiffs complaint, and
even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the
case.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14
(1983).

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV-17-2244 MWF (SHSx)
Title:
HVH, Inc. v. Rocio Melgarejo, et al.

Date: March 27, 2017

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is,
REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
3