Rancho Horizon LLC v. John Barton et al

Filing 6

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge George H. King. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (ad)

1

2

3
4

5
6

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANCHO HORIZON, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No. ED CV 13-2178-UA (DUTYx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

vs.
JOHN B. BARTON, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court
summarily because defendant removed it improperly.
On November 26, 2013, defendant Rey Reyes, having been sued in what

21

appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court,

22

lodged a Notice of Removal of that action to this Court, and also presented an

23

application to proceed in forma pauperis. 1 The Court has denied the latter

24

application under separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To

25
26
27
28

As noted in the Order Denying Defendant's Request to Proceed
Without Prepayment of Filing Fee, Rey Reyes is not actually named as a defendant
in the Complaint to be removed, but for purposes of this order the Court assumes
that he is one of the unnamed Doe defendants.

1

1 prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this
2
3

Order to remand the action to state court.
Simply stated, plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in

4 the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either
5 diversity or federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28
6 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546,
7 563, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). Here, defendant has asserted
8

federal question jurisdiction as his basis for removal. But as described in more

9

detail in the Order Denying Defendant's Request to Proceed Without Prepayment

10

of Filing Fee, because the unlawful detainer action to be removed does not

11

actually raise the federal claim to which defendant points, there is no basis to

12

assert federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441.

13

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the

14

Superior Court of California, Riverside County, 13800 Heacock Street, Building D

15

#201, Moreno Valley, CA 92553, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

16 to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the
17

state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

18
19
20

DATED:

fl.--} l.} (1)

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2