Rellion, Inc. v. Mordechai Orian et al

Filing 11

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge George H. Wu remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 17R01165. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)

REMAND/JS-6

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

2:17-CV-03625-GW-FFM

Title

Rellion, Inc. v. Orian, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 30, 2017

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

On May 15, 2017, defendant Mordechai Orian (“Defendant”), in pro per, removed this unlawful
detainer action to this Court from Los Angeles County Superior Court. Yun U Ru, Defendant’s codefendant, does not appear to have joined in the removal. Plaintiff Rellion, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) has now
moved to remand, by way of an ex parte application. Because subject matter jurisdiction is obviously
lacking here, the Court will remand the matter to state court.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s obligation to consider its subject matter jurisdiction in every case
before it. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). The Court plainly lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action.
This is a state law unlawful detainer action. Defendant’s references and citations to federal law
in his Notice of Removal are in aid of what would constitute, if anything, affirmative defenses or
counterclaims based on federal law. But a federal question must appear on the face of a plaintiff’s
complaint for an action to be removable to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. See
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392-93 (1987); Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985). What may or may not appear on the face of the complaint in a
separate state court action Defendant has instituted is similarly irrelevant. See Notice of Removal at 4:37, 4:13-18. The Complaint in this case raises no federal issues or questions.
The Notice of Removal does not identify diversity jurisdiction as a basis for this Court’s
jurisdiction, but the ex parte application and Defendant’s opposition brief suggest otherwise. In any
event, that form of jurisdiction is not present here either. For one thing, the Complaint, on its caption
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 1 of 2

REMAND/JS-6

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

2:17-CV-03625-GW-FFM

Title

Date

May 30, 2017

Rellion, Inc. v. Orian, et al.

page, explains that less than $10,000 is in controversy, far below the necessary $75,001.00. Contrary to
Defendant’s contention in opposition, the amount-in-controversy in unlawful detainer actions is not the
value of the property, but the daily damages (in the form of rental value) being accrued. See, e.g., 21st
Mortg. Corp. v. Jackson, No. 2:16-cv-07439-CAS (AFMx), 2016 WL 7477536, *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28,
2016).
Because subject matter jurisdiction is obviously lacking here, the Court has no need to address
Plaintiff’s argument – unsupported, so far as the Court can tell, by any evidence – that the removal was
untimely because effected outside the 30-day window for removals. Finally, although Defendant
complains about Plaintiff’s compliance with procedural requirements for ex parte applications, the Court
would have summarily remanded this action even with no request for ex parte relief. Scholastic Entm’t,
Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and
an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when
the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal citations).
For the foregoing reasons, the action is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California
for the County of Los Angeles.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 2 of 2