Brian Fabre v. Michael T. Guich et al

Filing 8

MINUTES (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATIONFOR ORDER TO REMAND UNLAWFUL DETAINER TO STATE COURT 6 by Judge S. James Otero. The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application and REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Pasadena. This case shall close. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (lom)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

DATE: August 1, 2017

CASE NO.: CV 17-05171 SJO (ASx)
TITLE:

Priority
Send
Enter
Closed
JS-5/JS-6
Scan Only

Brian Fabre v. Michael T. Guich

========================================================================
PRESENT: THE HONORABLE S. JAMES OTERO, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Victor Paul Cruz
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

COUNSEL PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

Not Present

========================================================================
PROCEEDINGS (in chambers): ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION
FOR ORDER TO REMAND UNLAWFUL DETAINER TO STATE COURT [Docket No. 6]
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Brian Fabre's ("Plaintiff") Ex Parte Application for Order
to Remand Unlawful Detainer to State Court ("Application"), filed July 28, 2017. Defendant
Michael T. Guich ("Defendant"), proceeding pro se, was served with the Application on July 24,
2017 and did not file an Opposition. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the Application
and REMANDS the action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Pasadena.
This is an unlawful detainer action, initially filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court on May 31,
2017. (Notice of Removal ("Removal"), ECF No. 1, Ex. 1 Compl.) On July 13, 2017, Defendant
removed the action to this Court based on federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1331, 1441. (Removal 2.) Defendant argues that federal question exists "because Defendant's
Demurrer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of Defendant's rights and Plaintiff's duties
under federal law." (Removal ¶ 10.)
Defendant's removal of the action is meritless. An action is removable to federal court only if it
might have been brought there originally. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). "If the court determines at
any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(h)(3). "Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal
. . . ." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.1992) (internal citations omitted). "Th[is]
'strong presumption' against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden
of establishing that removal is proper." Id. (internal citations omitted). "Under the 'well-pleaded
complaint' rule, a defendant may not remove such a case to federal court unless the plaintiff's
complaint establishes that the case 'arises under' federal law within the meaning of § 1331, and
it may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of pre-emption,
even if the defense is anticipated in the complaint and both parties admit that the defense is the
only question truly at issue." Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr.
for So. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 2 (1983) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted). Federal question
jurisdiction "exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's
properly pleaded complaint." Fisher v. NOS Commc'ns, 495 F.3d 1052, 1057 (9th Cir. 2007)
Page 1 of

2

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Priority
Send
Enter
Closed
JS-5/JS-6
Scan Only

DATE: August 1, 2017

CASE NO.: CV 17-05171 SJO (ASx)

(emphasis added) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Thus, "the plaintiff is the
master of his complaint and may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law."
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quotation marks and citation
omitted).
Here, Plaintiff's Complaint alleges one cause of action–unlawful detainer–which is a state law
claim. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, Defendant's Demurrer cannot constitute the basis
for federal jurisdiction. Moreover, even if Defendant removed the action based on diversity
jurisdiction–which it did not–subject matter jurisdiction would still be lacking because Defendant
did not show that the parties are diverse nor that the threshold amount is satisfied. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a). Indeed, Plaintiff's Complaint states that the amount demanded "does not exceed
$10,000," (Compl. 1), and the alleged damages of $66.67 per day from May 27, 2017 to the
present would fall far below the $75,000 threshold. (See Compl. ¶ 12.) Subject matter jurisdiction
is clearly lacking.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application and REMANDS the action to the Superior
Court of Los Angeles County, Pasadena. This case shall close.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of

2