Woodbriar Apartments v. Guadalupe Lara et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 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 Defendants Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (iv)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WOODBRIAR APARTMENTS,

13
14

Case No. CV 18-00893-FMO(RAOx)

Plaintiff,

12

v.

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

GUADALUPE LARA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff Woodbriar Apartments (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action

21

in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendant Guadalupe Lara and Does

22

1 to 10 (“Defendants”), on or about December 29, 2017. Notice of Removal

23

(“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendant Lara is

24

allegedly a tenant of real property located in Downey, California (“the property”).

25

Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the lessor of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4. Plaintiff filed

26

the unlawful detainer action demanding that Defendant quit and deliver up

27

possession of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 10. Plaintiff also seeks monetary damages.

28

Id. at ¶¶ 10, 17.

1

Defendant Lara filed a Notice of Removal on February 5, 2018, invoking the

2

Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2. Defendant also filed an

3

Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. No. 3.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION

6

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

7

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

8

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed.

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,

13

336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an

14

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

15

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting

16

internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to

17

federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

18

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption”

19

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th

20

Cir. 1992).

21

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

22

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

23

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

24

which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section

25

1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

26

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See

27

id. § 1331.

28

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint
2

1

makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the

2

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

3

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

4

detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203

5

GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful

6

detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac

7

Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL

8

234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack

9

of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an

10

unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question

11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those

19

defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because

20

Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as

21

artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

///

2

///

3

III.

4

CONCLUSION

5
6
7
8
9
10

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 Application to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 7, 2018
_____________/s/___________________________

11

FERNANDO M. OLGUIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16

Presented by:
________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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