Ala T Holdings LLC v. Gary Kooba et al

Filing 9

(In Chambers): Order REMANDING Unlawful Detainer Action to State Court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and REMANDS the case to state court. REFER TO THE COURT'S ORDER FOR DETAILS. Case remanded to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case number 17F01829 (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (pso)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-3836 PSG (JPRx)

Title

Ala T Holdings LLC v. Gary & Janet Kooba

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 2, 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 REMANDING Unlawful Detainer Action to State Court

On May 22, 2017, Defendants Gary and Janet Kooba removed an unlawful detainer
action to this Court. Dkt. # 1. Defendants allege that this Court has supplemental jurisdiction
over this unlawful detainer action because Defendant Gary Kooba filed a separate Complaint in
federal court alleging federal causes of action on March 17, 2017. See Kooba v. Selene Finance,
L.P. et al., CV 17-2127 PSG (JPRx). After reviewing Defendants’ notice of removal and the
underlying Complaint, however, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. 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.
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 17-3836 PSG (JPRx)

Date

Title

June 2, 2017

Ala T Holdings LLC v. Gary & Janet Kooba

The Court also notes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal
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 $25,000. Dkt. # 1, Ex. A. Moreover, Defendants have not
alleged Plaintiff’s citizenship. See Dkt. # 1. Therefore, the Court does not have diversity
jurisdiction over this matter.
Defendants’ notice of removal alleges that removal jurisdiction is proper because there is
supplemental jurisdiction based on a case filed by Defendant Gary Kooba in federal court. See
NOR 2:8-18; Dkt. # 1. A related, pending case is not sufficient grounds for removal. See
Fabricius v. Freeman, 466 F.2d 689, 693 (7th Cir. 1992) (“That a related case was pending in
federal court was not in itself sufficient grounds for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.”); see also
Sonoma Falls Developers, LLC v. Nevada Gold & Casinos Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919, 924-25
(N.D. Cal. 2003) (“Supplemental jurisdiction does not provide an independent basis for
removal.”). The Court must have original jurisdiction over at least one cause of action in the
case before exercising supplemental jurisdiction. See Morales v. Prolease PEO, LLC, No. CV
11-10389 MMM (JCGx), 2011 WL 6740329, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 22, 2011) (“‘The
supplemental jurisdiction statute does not allow a party to remove an otherwise unremovable
action to federal court for consolidation with a related federal action.’ . . . Even though ‘such an
approach would have the benefits of efficiency.’” (citations omitted)). Thus, there is no federal
jurisdiction on the basis of Kooba’s related federal case.
Accordingly, the Court finds 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