Ismat Farhana v. Nantu Khan et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATIONS TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case number 17STUD01054. Please refer to the Court's order for details. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (cr)

1
2
3
4
5
6

JS-6

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ISMAT FARHANA,

13
14
15

Case No. CV 17-08325-PA (RAOx)

Plaintiff,

12

v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING APPLICATIONS
TO PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS

NANTU KHAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff Ismat Farhana (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in Los

21

Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Nantu Khan, Alexandria Khan,

22

and Does 1-5, on or about August 15, 2017. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and

23

Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly tenants of

24

real property located in Los Angeles, California (“the property”). Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6.

25

Plaintiff is the owner of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4. Plaintiff filed the unlawful

26

detainer action demanding that defendants quit and deliver up possession of the

27

property. Id. at ¶¶ 7-8. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages. Id. at ¶¶ 10-12, 17.

28

1

Defendants Nantu Khan and Alexandria Khan filed a Notice of Removal on

2

November 15, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at

3

2. Defendants also filed Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs.

4

Dkt. Nos. 3-4.

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

Defendants assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

23

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant

24

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

25

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

28

id. § 1331.
2

1

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

2

and Answer makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction

3

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

4

apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple

5

unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV

6

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 Defendants’ contention that federal question

12
13

jurisdiction exists because defenses to the unlawful detainer involve federal issues.

14

Removal at 2. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on

15

the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s

16

complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only

17

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

18

2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendants’ defenses to the

19

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

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 Defendants’ Applications to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs are DENIED as moot.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: _____________
November 27, 2017
________________________________________

9

PERCY ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11

Presented by:

12
13

________________________________________

14

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4