Morgan Picks1, LLC v. Joo Young Kim et al

Filing 9

MINUTE (In Chambers): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald: The Court REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. Local Rule 58-6. The pending Ex Parte Notice of Plaintiff's Motion and Motion to Remand (Docket No. 5 ) is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-02991-MWF (Ex)
Date: June 23, 2017
Title:
Morgan Picks1, LLC v. Joo Young Kim, et al.
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 ACTION TO
STATE COURT

Plaintiff Morgan Picks1, LLC filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against
Defendant Joo Young Kim and ten Doe Defendants in the Los Angeles County
Superior Court. (Notice of Removal (Docket No. 2) at 7). Defendant Jose Cruz
Vasquez subsequently removed the action to this Court. (Id. at 1).
This Court has a sua sponte obligation to confirm that it has subject matter
jurisdiction. Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 673 (9th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is
well established that ‘a court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua
sponte, at any time during the pendency of the action . . . .’” (quoting Snell v.
Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002))).
The Court cannot properly assert jurisdiction over this matter, because the matter
does not arise under federal law. “For a case to ‘arise under’ federal law, a plaintiff’s
well-pleaded complaint must establish either (1) that federal law creates the cause of
action or (2) that the plaintiff’s asserted right to relief depends on the resolution of a
substantial question of federal law.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Rolland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653
F.3d 1024, 1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
Importantly, there is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense
to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,
482 U.S. 386, 392-93 (1987).
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
1

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No. CV 17-02991-MWF (Ex)
Date: June 23, 2017
Title:
Morgan Picks1, LLC v. Joo Young Kim, et al.
Cruz Vasquez contends that the Complaint arises under federal law because
Plaintiff violated Cruz Vasquez’s rights ad defined by the Truth in Lending Act, 15
U.S.C. § 1601, et seq. (Notice of Removal ¶ 6). However, Plaintiff’s Complaint
includes only the state law claim for unlawful detainer, and Defendant’s anticipated
defenses to that claim cannot confer jurisdiction on this Court.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of the State
of California for the County of Los Angeles. The Court ORDERS the Clerk to treat
this Order, and its entry on the docket, as an entry of judgment. Local Rule 58-6.
The pending Ex Parte Notice of Plaintiff’s Motion and Motion to Remand
(Docket No. 5) is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
2