Neos Agora LLC v. Seung Soo Ma

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS: ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge George H. Wu. Case remanded to Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case number 17P02863. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

REMAND/JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-6111-GW(Ex)

Title

Neos Agora, LLC v. Seung Soo Ma

Present: The Honorable

Date

October 11, 2017

GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Javier Gonzalez

None Present

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

On May 15, 2017, defendant Sueng Soo Ma (“Defendant”), in pro per, removed this unlawful
detainer action to this Court from Los Angeles County Superior Court. Because subject matter
jurisdiction is obviously lacking here, the Court will remand the matter to state court. Scholastic Entm’t,
Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc. 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (providing a party with an opportunity to
respond when a court dismisses a case is not necessary when dismissal is for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s obligation to consider its subject matter jurisdiction in every
case before it, even if no party raises the issue. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006).
The Court plainly lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.
This lawsuit was initially brought as a state law unlawful detainer action. Defendant’s
references and citations to federal law in the Notice of Removal are in aid of what would constitute, if
anything, affirmative defenses or counterclaims based on federal law. But a federal question must
appear on the face of a plaintiff’s complaint for an action to be removable to federal court based on
federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392-93 (1987); Takeda v.
Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985). The Complaint in this case raises
no federal issues or questions. Furthermore, the Notice of Removal does not identify diversity pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 as a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the action is
remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JG
Page 1 of 1