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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?