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

Filing 17

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS)ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John F. Walter. For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Su perior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Ifany of the Defendants violate the Court's order, the Court will award sanctions in the amount of $5,000.00 against each Defendant.(See minute order for further details) Superior Court State of CA for Los Angeles, Case number 17UR0160 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (yl)

JS-6

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

CV 17-5433-JFW(JEMx)

Title:

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

Date: August 1, 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 (“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 July 24, 2017,
Defendant Srunya Werajitteevin Ponvanit ("Defendant Ponvanit") 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 Ponvanit 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 Ponvanit 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

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr

Ponvanit alleges in her 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.
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). Because the Defendants have abused the removal
process by filing six frivolous removals, the Defendants in this action are hereby barred from filing
any further notices of removal of this case without an order of this Court allowing them to do so. If
any of the Defendants violate the Court's order, the Court will award sanctions in the amount of
$5,000.00 against each Defendant.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Deputy Clerk sr