Thomas McQueen v. Victor Assouline et al

Filing 7

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) Order GRANTING Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Remand Unlawful Detainer Action to State Court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez granting 6 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand Case to State Court: Accordingly, the Court finds on its own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and REMANDS the case to state court. (see document for further details) MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (bm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-3232 PSG (AFMx)

Title

McQueen v. Assouline

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 12, 2017

Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy Hernandez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order GRANTING Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Remand
Unlawful Detainer Action to State Court

Before the Court is Plaintiff Thomas McQueen’s ex parte application to remand this
unlawful detainer action to state court. Dkt. # 6. After reviewing Defendant’s notice of removal
and the underlying Complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case and it GRANTS Plaintiff’s application to remand. See Moore v. Maricopa Cnty. Sheriff’s
Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Court is obligated to determine sua sponte
whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If at any
time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991).
There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal
always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582
F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). If there is any ambiguity as to the propriety of removal, federal
jurisdiction must be rejected. See id. Furthermore, “a defendant may not [generally] remove a
case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’
federal law.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (emphasis in original).
The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to be evident from the face of
the plaintiff’s complaint for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to exist. See Rivet v. Regions
Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Here, the Complaint asserts only a claim for unlawful
detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. See Dkt. # 1, Ex. A. Thus, from
the face of the complaint, no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.
The Court also notes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-3232 PSG (AFMx)

Title

Date

May 12, 2017

McQueen v. Assouline

court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity between the parties
and the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7
U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The unlawful detainer complaint seeks
damages in an amount less than $75,000. Dkt. # 1, Ex. A. Therefore, the amount in controversy
requirement is not met.
Defendant’s notice of removal also alleges that removal jurisdiction is proper based on 28
U.S.C. § 1441. See NOR ¶ 10. Under Section 1441, a party may remove an action to the district
court embracing the state court where the action is currently pending if the district court would
also have original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Since Defendant has failed to provide a
sufficient basis for original federal jurisdiction, however, the action cannot properly be removed
under Section 1441.
Accordingly, the Court finds on its own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this matter and REMANDS the case to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2