Sares Regis Management Company v. Adrian Ramirez et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

JS-6
1
2

6/19/2017

3

C
W

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SARES REGIS MANAGEMENT
COMPANY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. CV 17-04415-FMO (RAOx)

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

v.
ADRIAN RAMIREZ, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Sares Regis Management Company (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful
detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Adrian
Ramirez, James Ignacio, and Does 1 to 10. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and
Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”) and Demurrer. Dkt. No. 1.
Defendants are allegedly unauthorized tenants of real property located in Norwalk,
California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the authorized agent for
the property’s owner. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.
///
///

1

Defendants Adrian Ramirez and James Ignacio (“Defendants”) filed a Notice

2

of Removal on June 14, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction.

3

Removal at 2. The same day, Defendants filed an application to proceed without

4

prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. Nos. 3-4.

5

II.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

Cir. 1992).

22

Defendants assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See

28

id. § 1331.
2

1

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

2

and Demurrer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question

3

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

4

federal question apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege

5

only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v.

6

Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22,

7

2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation

8

omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA

9

(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to

10

state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint

11

contained only an unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendants’ contention that federal question

12
13

jurisdiction exists because defenses in the Demurrer raise issues involving federal

14

law. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis

15

of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s

16

complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only

17

question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct.

18

2425, 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendants’ defenses to the

19

unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those

20

defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because

21

Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as

22

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

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

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 of Los Angeles, forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Applications to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

8
9

DATED: June 19, 2017

10

/s/
________________________________________
FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
12

Presented by:

13

/s/
________________________________________

14

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4