Sunnyway Investment, Inc. v. Victor Bell et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Fernando M. Olguin. IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defen dant's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis DENIED as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case remanded to Superior Court State of CA for Los Angeles, Case number 17WCUD00392. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mailed 12/13/17) (lom) Modified on 12/13/2017 (lom).

FILED
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

1

DEC 13 2017

2
3

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

vdr
BY: ___________________ DEPUTY

4
5

JS-6

6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SUNNYWAY INVESTMENT, INC.,

13
14
15

Case No. CV 17-08867-FMO(RAOx)

Plaintiff,

12

v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

VICTOR BELL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff Sunnyway Investment, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer

21

action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Victor Bell and

22

Ronette Bell (“Defendants”), on or about November 13, 2017. Notice of Removal

23

(“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are

24

allegedly tenants of real property located in West Covina, California (“the

25

property”). Compl. ¶¶ 2-3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 1-2.

26

Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action demanding that Defendants quit and

27

deliver up possession of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 8-9. Plaintiff also seeks monetary

28

damages. Id. at ¶¶ 11- 13.

1
2

Defendant Victor Bell (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on December

3

8, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2.

4

Defendant also filed a Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. No. 2.

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 L. Ed.

10

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

11

jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L.

12

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

13

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 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, at *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 unlawful detainer involve federal housing

14

laws. Removal at 2-4. 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. 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

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 DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 13, 2017
___________/s/_____________________________

9

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
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