Nguyen Pahm v. John A Boice et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Virginia A. Phillips REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE: (see document image for further details). 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 Riverside. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (ad)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 13-01050-VAP (SPx)

Date: June 19, 2013

Title:

NGUYEN PAHM -v- JOHN A. BOICE, WENDY L. BOICE, AND DOES 1
TO 10, INCLUSIVE
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:
None
PROCEEDINGS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:
None

MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE
CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF
RIVERSIDE (IN CHAMBERS)

On June 11, 2013, Defendant John A. Boice ("Defendant"), appearing pro se,
removed this action from the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.
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 ¶¶ 3,
7.) For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California
Superior Court for the County of Riverside.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk __cls for MD_______
Page 1

EDCV 13-01050-VAP (SPx)
NGUYEN PAHM v. JOHN A. BOICE, WENDY L. BOICE, AND DOES 1-10, INCLUSIVE
MINUTE ORDER of June 19, 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 Riverside.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk __cls for MD_______
Page 2