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).

Download PDF
/~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

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?