Snapdragon, LLC v. Jesus Martinez Roman et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, Case number 56-2017-00498048-CL-UD-VTA, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs are DENIED as moot. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) (gk)

Download PDF
1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SNAPDRAGON, LLC, Plaintiff, 12 13 14 Case No. CV 17-06387-CAS (RAOx) ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS AS MOOT v. JESUS MARTINEZ ROMAN, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Snapdragon, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in 20 Ventura County Superior Court against Defendants Jesus Martinez Roman, Carol 21 R. Ramirez, Isabelle Brilat, and Does 1-10, on or about June 22, 2017. Notice of 22 Removal (“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. 23 Defendants are allegedly unauthorized tenants of real property located in Ventura, 24 California (“the property”). Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the property. 25 Id. ¶ 1, 4. 26 Defendants Carol R. Ramirez and Isabelle Brilat (“Defendants”) filed a 27 Notice of Removal on August 29, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question 28 jurisdiction. Removal at 2. 1 2 The same day, Defendant Ramirez and Defendant Brilat filed Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4. 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 6 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 7 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 8 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject 9 matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 10 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is 11 an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 12 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an 13 opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, 14 it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting 15 internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to 16 federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. 17 Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” 18 against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th 19 Cir. 1992). 20 Defendants assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the 21 existence of a federal question. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant 22 part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of 23 which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 24 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 25 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. 26 § 1331. 27 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 28 makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant 2 1 matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent from the 2 face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause 3 of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 4 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not 5 arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 6 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 7 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where 8 plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). Second, there is no merit to Defendants’ argument that the demurrer involves 9 10 a “determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” 11 Removal at 2. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on 12 the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s 13 complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 14 question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct. 15 2425, 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendants’ defenses to the 16 unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those 17 defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because 18 Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as 19 artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 20 /// 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 III. 3 CONCLUSION 1 2 3 4 5 6 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Ventura, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs are DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 DATED: August 31, 2017 ________________________________________ 9 CHRISTINA A. SNYDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 Presented by: ________________________________________ ROZELLA A. OLIVER UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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?