Paul Herold v. Coreen McKendry

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case number SWC1300023. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. Certified copies of remand order and docket sheet forwarded to state court. (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (rne)

JS-6

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

CV 13-00340-RGK (OPx)

Title

PAUL HEROLD v. COREEN MCKENDRY

Present: The
Honorable

Date

May 16, 2013

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO
SUPERIOR COURT

On February 22, 2013, Defendant Coreen McKendry (“Defendant”), in pro se, removed this
action from the Riverside County Superior Court of California to the United States District Court,
Central District of California on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit
has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor
House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction
means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles,
Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d
709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 264 F.3d
952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is
properly in federal court.”).
Defendant states that the basis for removal is that the claims arise under federal law. However,
according to Defendant’s Notice of Removal, the removed Complaint states one claim for Unlawful
Detainer, an action that exclusively invokes authority pursuant to California statute. There is no
indication that the Complaint sets forth any claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or laws
of the United States for which the Court would have “original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to her
Notice of Removal. Accordingly, Defendant’s removal is improper for lack of federal question
jurisdiction.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior
Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2