Holt Avenue Housing Partners LP v. Katie Gomez et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT by Judge Beverly Reid O'Connell that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing is DENIED as moot. (Made JS-6 Case Terminated.) (jp)

1
2
3

JS-6

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS MOOT

v.
KATIE GOMEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

17
18

Case No. CV 17-06180-BRO
(RAOx)

HOLT AVENUE HOUSING
PARTNERS, LP,

I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Holt Avenue Housing Partners, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful
detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Katie
Gomez, Myra Hernandez, Matthew Hernandez, Arthur Hernandez, and Does 1-10,
on or about May 19, 2017. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and Attached
Complaint Coversheets and Notices of Unlawful Detainer (Eviction), Dkt. No. 1.
Defendants are allegedly unauthorized tenants of real property located in Pomona,
California (“the property”). Id.
Defendant Katie Gomez (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on August
21, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3.

1

Defendant Gomez also filed a Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing to Present

2

Evidence, Witnesses, and Oral Argument. Dkt. No. 4.
The same day, Defendant filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt.

3
4

No. 3.

5

II.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

8

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

9

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

10

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject

11

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

12

163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

13

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,

14

336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an

15

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

16

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting

17

internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to

18

federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

19

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption”

20

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th

21

Cir. 1992).

22

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

23

existence of a federal question. (Removal at 2-3, 4-7.) Section 1441 provides, in

24

relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court

25

of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section

26

1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

27

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id.

28

§ 1331.
2

1

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached paperwork

2

makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant

3

matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the

4

face of the complaint coversheets and notices of eviction, which appears to allege

5

only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley,

6

No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An

7

unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted);

8

IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010

9

WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for

10

lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an

11

unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question

12
13

jurisdiction exists because defenses to the action raise matters concerning federal

14

law. Removal at 4-6. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal

15

court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the

16

plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the

17

only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107

18

S.Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses

19

to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those

20

defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because

21

Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as

22

artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26
27
28
3

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6
7
8
9

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for an Evidentiary
Hearing is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

DATED: August 23, 2017

BEVERLY REID O’CONNELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13

________________________________________

Presented by:

14
15
16
17

________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4