Christiana Trust v. Amel Djerrad et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez remanding case to Superior Court of California County of Los Angeles, Santa Monica Courthouse; Case number 17R03200 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (ab) Modified on 10/26/2017 (ab).

/~J
r
~
1
2

~~ERK.

3

R~
FILED
U.S.~?TR~C~
~"

v;

.,.,,.,
,
4
` CENTRAL
~
BY

5

i

T0

pRN~p :i,
EPU1V

....

6
7
8

9
10
11

UNIT~ll STATES 13ISTRICT C~~TRT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CHRISTIANA TRUST,A DIVISION OF
WILMINGTON SAVINGS FUND
SOCIETY,FSB, E'I'. AL.,

CASE NUMBER:
CV 1.7-07410-PSG (ASx)

Plaintiff
12
13
14

v.
AMEL DJERRAD,and DOES ?through 5,
inclusive

15

1~

L'~fendant(s). j

The Court sua s~onte REMANDS this ~cl:ion to the California Superior Court for the

18 County of Los Angeles
19

~RI~E~ RF,MANDING CASE TO
~~TATE C6)URT

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below.

"The right cat removal is ~~ntireiy a creature o:stat~,te an~i `3 suit commenced in a state

20 II court must remain there until cause is sr o~n for its ~r~:nsfer ~:n~er surne act of congress."'
21 ~n~enta Croy Protection, Inc. v. H n~sc.r_, 437 U.S, 28, 32(2002)(quoting Great Northern R. Co.
22 v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where Congress leas acted to create a right of removal,
23 those statutes are strictly cons rued agaiirst refno~~al ~urisdictiors. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of America
24 Corn•,672 F.3d 66I,667(9th Cir. 2012); Ga«s ;%._ti~i~es, Inc., 9~0 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
25

Unless otherwise ~:~~ress.~y ~;~r~vi:led ~s~ ~,~3ngress. a d_~,f~°nciant may remove "any civil

2 action brought in a State court c ~cllicn the dist~i~t cour~s ~f ~:e Un~tE~ States have original
6
27 jurisdiction." 28 L'.S.C. 4 1441(x); Iyenn s v. Hart, 72~ F.3d 1249, 1?52 (9th Cir. 2013). The
28 removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v.

CV-136 (12/14)

C,7.p4;~_ldC~l'4,~:Sls"~V!~ ('4~;;~. "Q'O ~ t~A.'~~~; ~t?['RT

Page 1 of3

1

Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 67~,682(9th Cir. 2i~OG); Gnus, 980 ~H.2d at 5(6-67. "Under the plain

~ terms of g 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision,[the
a
3

removing defendant] must demonstrate that original suUje:ct-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal

4

courts." Syngenta Croy Protection, 537 tJ.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be

5

remanded, as "[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and ...the district court must

6

remand if it lacks jurisdiction." Kelton Army Condo~~wners r~ss'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346

7

F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). "If at a~~~ ti~l~e before fi,na? ju~u~rnent ~t a~~~,ea~s that the district

8

court lacks subject rtiatter jurisdici.ion, the cage s~ial~ ~e renz~~aze~ed." 23 U.,~.C. ~ 1447(c). It is

elementaY-y that the subject mgt€~:r jurisdictio~l cif t ie district court is not a ~vaivable matter and
9 "
10

maybe raised at anyeii4le by one of tl~e parties, by rn~t~a;: o_ ~n the responsive pleadings, or sua

11

sponte by the trial ur reviewing ~~c~urt." Emrich v. Tauche Ross~ Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2

9th Cir. 1988).
12 (
13
14
15

Froir. a review of the Ie~o~ice :;f k~tr~~c,v~:l a~ie~ t~1e s~t~i~: c:curt records provided, it is evident
that the Court lacks subject ir_atter ~~,~risciiction uve tl- e irastari~ ease, fir tree following reasons.
.
0 No basis for federal questio~l jurisdiction his been identified:


16
u

The Complaint does not include any clam "arising under the Constitution, laws,
or treaties of tl~e linated States." 281,~.~.C. F 1331.

0✓

Removing c~efendan(s) asserts that. the affirmative defenses at issue give rise to
federal ~u~;stion fur scuiciic~r., bit "tile exi5~~en~e c~~~tederal j~i-isdiction depends
solely on tl~e ~laiutiff's claims for re~.~ef and not ~~n anti~ipat~~d defenses to those
claims." ARCO F,nv±l. Remediation, L.L.L. v. Dom. of HeaYth and Envtl. uali ,
213 F.3d I1G8, 11 ~3 f9th C~_~. 200U). A~ "affirmative defense based on federal law"
does not "render[] an action brought in state co~.~rt removable." Berg v. Leason, 32
F.3d 422,425(9th Cir. 1994}. A "case may not ~e removed to federal court on the
bas~.s of a fe~i~ral ~eftnse ... e`en if the c~~fense is anticipated in the plaintiffs
complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly
at issue in the casP." Franchise Tax ~'d. v. ~.;o~struction Laborers Vacation Trust,
463 li.S, 1, 14(]x'83). ~------------------

17
18
19
2
0
21
22
23
2
4
25

The underlying ~~ctic~r~ i~ an r.:nl~~vfur c~e~a:~_~ie.~ ~~~-~~~eeding, <~r-ising under and
governed by the ~~vv,~ of tine State ~f California.

2
6
27
28

CV-136 (12/14)

l~F~l~:i~ RE1f~l~'~~i~i:~(> CASE:'I~0 S ~~'S~E f'vEiY2'1~

Page 2 of 3

1

~ Diversity jurisdiction is ~acki~ig:

2
3

~ Every defendant is nc~t alleged to be :iiverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. ~
1332(a).

4
5;

~ The Complaint does not allele damages ir3 eXcess of $75,000, and removing
defendant(s) has .pct pla~.asibl}~ all ~r:d t ai t?~e a,~,~~ount in controversy requirement
has been met. Icl.; see Dart Cherokee Basin O~eratin~ Co•, I,LC v. Owens, No.
13-719, 2014 ~VI_, 70]X69?, at *6 (U.S. I~ec. 15, 2034}.

6~
7~

~ ~'he underlying ~:nla~vf~1 detaia~er action is a limited civil ac±ion that does not
exceed $25,000.

g

9 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and herEby is, REMANDED to the Superior
10

Court of California listen. above,for lack of sul~j~ct ~~~U~t~r jrris+~ictioi~.

11
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13 ,

Date:

14 ~

~~I?~ ~~
------------------

--------- ----United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
F
19
2
0
21
22
23
2
4
25

F

2 ~~
6
~~
27
28

CV-136(12!14)

(9RD~'Fd Ri:~1:~Nmf~~G C'ASiE 7~~ S~Z~A~E CQU~2T

Page 3 of3