Katie Stewart v. Goan Gu No et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Northeast District, Case number 17CHUD00321. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-209 PA (Ex)

Title

Katie Stewart v. Goan Gu No, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

January 17, 2018

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by Ae Chung (“Chung”) on January 9, 2018.
Chung is attempting to remove an action commenced by plaintiff Katie Stewart (“Plaintiff”) in Los
Angeles Superior Court on October 3, 2017. Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a single cause of action for
unlawful detainer. Chung alleges that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis the Court’s
federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. By referencing a pending bankruptcy proceeding,
Chung also asserts jurisdiction for claims related to bankruptcy cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a).
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal
jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule,
“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus,
plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 318. There is no federal question jurisdiction simply because there is a federal defense to the
claim. Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. The only exception to this rule is where
plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a
federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F. 2d
1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-209 PA (Ex)

Date

Title

January 17, 2018

Katie Stewart v. Goan Gu No, et al.

Here, the Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. No federal claim is
alleged. The Notice of Removal’s reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1331does not constitute a basis for removal.
Neither a federal defense nor an actual or anticipated federal counterclaim form a basis for removal.
Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 61-62, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009).
Therefore, Chung has failed to show that federal question jurisdiction exists.
28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) allows a party to “remove any claim or cause of action in a civil action to
the district court for the district where such action is pending” if the district court has jurisdiction of the
claim or cause of action under 28 U.S.C. § 1334. Section 1334(b) invests district courts with “original
but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to
cases under title 11.” Once a claim is removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), the court to which the
claim has been removed “may remand such claim or cause of action on any equitable ground.” 28
U.S.C. § 1452(b). An order remanding an action pursuant to § 1452(b) “is not reviewable by appeal or
otherwise by the court of appeals under section 158(d), 1291, or 1292 [of Title 28] of by the Supreme
Court.” Id. Section 1452(b)’s “‘any equitable ground’ remand standard is an unusually broad grant of
authority. It subsumes and reaches beyond all of the reasons for remand under nonbankruptcy removal
statutes. . . . At bottom, the question is committed to the sound discretion of the . . . judge.” McCarthy
v. Prince, 230 B.R. 414, 417 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1999).
In assessing whether “equitable grounds” exist to remand actions removed under § 1452, courts
have looked to a number of factors:
These factors have included, among other things, judicial economy,
comity and respect for state law decision-making capabilities, the impact
that remand would have upon the orderly administration of the debtor’s
bankruptcy case, the effect of bifurcating claims and parties to an action
and the possibilities of inconsistent results, the predominance of state law
issues and nondebtor parties, and the extent of any prejudice to nondebtor
parties.
In re TIG Ins. Co., 264 B.R. 661, 665-66 (Bankr. S.D. Cal. 2001); see also McCarthy, 230 B.R. at 418
(“State courts are, by definition, fully competent to resolve disputes governed by state law.”).
Here, there is nothing from the face of Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer Complaint to confer
bankruptcy removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), and thus removal on this ground was
improper. Moreover, this unlawful detainer proceeding does not appear to have any bearing on any
pending bankruptcy case and is entirely a creature of state law over which the state courts are competent
to preside in the interests of judicial economy, comity, and respect for state law decision-making. The
Court therefore concludes that equitable grounds support remand.
Chung has failed to establish that this action was properly removed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§
1331 and 1452(a), or that there is any other valid basis for this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction over this
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

JS-6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-209 PA (Ex)

Date

Title

January 17, 2018

Katie Stewart v. Goan Gu No, et al.

matter. Moreover, the Court concludes that equitable grounds support remand of this action under §
1452(b). For all of the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby remanded to the Los Angeles County
Superior Court, Northeast District, Case No. 17CHUD00321. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1447(c) & 1452(b).
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3