HSBC Bank USA, National Association v. Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit et al

Filing 10

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURTby Judge John F. Walter: Defendant fails to meet the second prong. Indeed, Defendant's Notice of Removal fails to identify any formal expression of state law that prohibit s Defendant from enforcing her civil rights in Los Angeles Superior Court, and Defendant has failed to present any evidence that suggests that the Los Angeles Superior Court would not enforce her civil rights in its proceedings. 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 17-4550-JFW (JEMx)

Title:

HSBC Bank USA, N.A.-v- Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit, et al.

Date: June 28, 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 January 20, 2017, Plaintiff HSBC Bank USA, National Association as Trustee For the
Holders of the Ellington Loan Acquisition Trust 2007-2, Mortgage Pass-through Certificates, Series
2007-2, ("Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Srunya
Werajitteevin Ponvanit, Ignacia Zuniga, Celia Jimenez and Jose D. Avila, in Los Angeles Superior
Court. On June 20, 2017, Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit (“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 her burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendant alleges in her

Page 1 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

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)
(internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by
Plaintiff’s action.
In addition, Defendant alleges that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1443(1), which provides:
Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court
may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the
district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) against any person
who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law
providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all person
within the jurisdiction thereof.
However, to remove a case under Section 1443(1), a defendant must satisfy the two-prong
test set forth by the Supreme Court in George v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 794-804 (1966) and City of
Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824-28 (1966):
First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given
to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights. Second,
petitioners must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that
allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional
provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.
California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970) (internal citations omitted). Defendant
fails to meet the second prong. Indeed, Defendant’s Notice of Removal fails to identify any formal
expression of state law that prohibits Defendant from enforcing her civil rights in Los Angeles
Superior Court, and Defendant has failed to present any evidence that suggests that the Los
Angeles Superior Court would not enforce her civil rights in its proceedings. Patel v. Del Taco, Inc.,
446 F.3d 996, 998 (9th Cir. 2006).

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.

Page 2 of 2

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr