Martingale Investments LLC v. Argirios Notis et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO by Judge Virginia A. Phillips: For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV103) (am)

PRIORITY SEND
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-00614-VAP (DTBx)

Date: April 11, 2013

Title:

MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS LLC -v- ARGIRIOS NOTIS AND DOES
1-10
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)

On April 4, 2013, Defendant Argirios Notis ("Defendant") removed this action
from the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. Defendant
alleges the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to hear this matter pursuant to
federal question jurisdiction. (See Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1) at ¶ 12.) For the
following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 1

EDCV 13-00614-VAP (DTBx)
MARTINGALE INVESTMENTS LLC v. ARGIRIOS NOTIS AND DOES 1-10
MINUTE ORDER of April 11, 2013

Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth
Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "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. FedermanBachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford
Motor Co./Citibank, 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."). "If at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v.
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent
obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.")
Defendant alleges the basis for removal is federal question jurisdiction. From
the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a
California state law action. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation
Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (holding that a defendant may not remove a case to
federal court unless the basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the
complaint). Without a federal question, there is no federal question jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk ___md___
Page 2