Morgan Picks, LLC v. Joo Young Kim et al

Filing 7

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John F. Walter: Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matt er jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Defendant fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff's Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. Accordingly, there is no federal que stion jurisdiction presented by Plaintiffs action. For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6

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

CV 17-3483-JFW (PLAx)

Title:

Morgan Picks1, LLC-v- Joo Young Kim

Date: May 19, 2017

PRESENT:
HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Shannon Reilly
Courtroom Deputy

None Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
None

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
SUPERIOR COURT

On November 30, 2016, Plaintiff Morgan Picks1, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for
Unlawful Detainer against Defendant Joo Young Kim (“Defendant”) in Los Angeles Superior Court.
On May 9, 2017, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School
District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the
jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction
must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v.
Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong
presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See
Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir.
1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that
removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche
Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).
Defendant fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendant alleges in his
Notice of Removal that the claim arises under federal law, “[a]n unlawful detainer action does not
raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of
jurisdiction.” Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003)

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by
Plaintiff’s action.
For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr