Kourosh Kaveh v. Pia Jackson et al

Filing 5

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: Remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDSF 1201731. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 TRANSMITTAL LETTER) (rla)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 12-2167 AG (DTBx)

Title

KOUROSH KAVEH v. PIA JACKSON

Present: The
Honorable

December 14, 2012

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Proceedings:

Date

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff Kourosh Kaveh (“Plaintiff”) filed this case in state court for unlawful detainer.
Defendant Pia Jackson (“Defendant”) then filed a Notice of Removal, which removed this
case from state to federal court. For the reasons that follow, the Court REMANDS the
case to state court.
Plaintiff’s Complaint states a simple state cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Defendant’s Notice of Removal argues that federal jurisdiction is proper based upon
federal question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal 2.) But a review the Complaint makes
clear that Defendant’s argument fails. The Complaint does not rely on any federal law, so
Defendant has not demonstrated a basis for federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 33 (2002) (“Under the plain terms of §
1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [defendants]
must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.”).
Further, in unlawful detainer actions, “[s]peedy adjudication is desirable to prevent
subjecting the landlord to undeserved economic loss and the tenant to unmerited
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 12-2167 AG (DTBx)

Date

Title

December 14, 2012

KOUROSH KAVEH v. PIA JACKSON

harassment and dispossession when his lease or rental agreement gives him the right to
peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property.” Lindsey v. Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 73
(1972). Improper removal of unlawful detainer cases harms the concerns stated in
Lindsey. Defendant is cautioned not to improperly seek federal jurisdiction, particularly
for delay. See Newman & Cahn, LLP v. Sharp, 388 F. Supp. 2d 115, 119 (E.D.N.Y.
2005) (finding that a removal was “frivolous and unwarranted,” but declining to order
sanctions against the removing party “because she [was] pro se,” though warning her
“that the filing of another frivolous paper with the Court may result in monetary sanctions
under Rule 11”).
In sum, Defendant fails to establish that federal jurisdiction exists over this case. Thus,
the case is REMANDED to the appropriate state court.

:
Initials of
Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2

lmb

0