M and M Property Management v. Juan De Alva et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Stephen V. Wilson. Case remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 18NWUD00192. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

M&M PROPERTY MANAGEMENT,

13
14
15

Case No. CV 18-01905-SVW (RAOx)

Plaintiff,

12

v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

JUAN DE ALVA and NORMA
PEREA,
Defendants.

JS-6

16
17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff M&M Property Management (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer

21

action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Juan De Alva and

22

Norma Perea (“Defendants”), on or about January 19, 2018. Notice of Removal

23

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

24

allegedly tenants of real property located in Bellflower, California (“the property”).

25

Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner’s authorized agent for the property. Id. at

26

¶¶ 2, 4. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action demanding that Defendants quit

27

and deliver up possession of the property. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 10. Plaintiff also seeks

28

monetary damages. Id. at ¶¶ 10, 17.

1

Defendant Perea filed a Notice of Removal on March 7, 2018, invoking the

2

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

3

Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. 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 Perea asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United

27

States.” See id. § 1331.

28

///
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12
13

question jurisdiction exists based on alleged violations of the Fair Housing Act.

14

Removal at 2-3. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court

15

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 Perea’s

19

defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal

20

law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id.

21

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

22

or as 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 Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED as moot.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

March 14, 2018
DATED: _____________
________________________________________

9

STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14

Presented by:
________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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