Morgan Picks Two, LLC v. Grace M. Turner et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 17UN0971. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

priority
Send
`'~'
Enter
~~Closed ~~
~
,~JS-6 ~~`„
JS-?/JSv ~"~

1

2

s~al~ o„~y- - 3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MORGAN PICKS TWO,LLC,
Plaintiffs,

12
13
14

Case No. CV 17-03368-SVW (RAOx)

v.

GRACE M. TURNER and
ARCHANEL N. JENl~1INGS,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING APPLICATION
TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS

15

Defendants.
16
17
I
.
18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
19

Plaintiff Morgan Picks Two,LLC ("Plaintiff') filed an unlawful detainer
2
0

action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Grace M. Turner,
21

Archanel N. Jennings, and Does 1-10, on March 27, 2017. Notice of Removal
22

(
"Removal")and Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer("Compl.") and
23

Answer. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly holdover occupants of real property
24

located in Compton, California ("the property"). Compl., ¶¶ 1, 5-7. Plaintiff is the
25

owner ofthe property. Id. at ¶¶ 1, 5.
2
6

Defendant Archanel N. Jennings("Defendant") filed a Notice of Removal on
27

May 4, 2017, invoking the Court's federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2.
28

1

The same day, Defendant filed an application to proceed without prepaying fees or

2 II costs. Dkt. No. 3.
3

II.

4

DISCUSSION

5

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

6

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

7

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

8

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court's duty always to examine its own subject

9

matter jurisdiction, see A~baugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

10

163 L.Ed.2d 1097(2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

11

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm't, Inc. v. Fox Entm't Grp., Inc.,

12

336 F.3d 982,985 (9th Cir. 2003)("While a party is entitled to notice and an

13

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

14

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.")(omitting

15

internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to

16

f
ederal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

17

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925,927(9th Cir. 1986). Further, a "strong presumption"

18

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567(9th

19

Cir. 1992).

2
0

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

21

existence of a federal question. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant

22

part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of

23

which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section

2
4

1331 provides that federal "district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

2~

actions arising under the constitution, laws, or treaiies of the united States." See

2
6

id. § 1331.

27

Here, the Court's review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint,

28

and Answer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction
2

1

over the instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question

2

apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple

3

unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV

4

10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.CaI. Nov. 22, 2010) ("An

5

unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.") (citation omitted);

6

I
ndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010

7

WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.CaI. Jan. 13, 2010)(remanding an action to state court for

8

lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an

9

unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant's contention that federal question

10

11

jurisdiction exists because the Defendant's Answer raises issues arising under

12

f
ederal law. Removal at 2. It is well settled that a "case may not be removed to

13

f
ederal court on the basis of a federal defense ...even if the defense is anticipated

14

in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense

15

is the only question truly at issue." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393,

16

107 S.Ct. 2425, 2430,96 L.Ed.2d 318(1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant's

17

defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal

18

law,those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id.

19

Because Plaintiff's complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face

2
0

or as artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

21

/
//

22

/
//

23

/
//

2
4

/
//

25

iii

2
6

/
//

27

/
//

28

/
//
3

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6
7

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County ofLos Angeles, forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DErTIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED:

10

~.~
STE
N V. WILS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12

~/~

Presented by:

13
14
15

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
U1~IITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
2
0
21
22
23
2
4
25
2
6
27
28
L~