Danilo Arce et al v. Vanessa Osario et al
Filing
7
ORDER by Judge Virginia A. Phillips remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino, Fontana, Case number UDFS1406566 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Letter Trans,ittal Letter CV 103) (shb)
t
l
...................._._._..._..._. ...__._.__..----FlED
ClERK, U.S. DIS!RI~T~?~J_RT
1
I DEC - 9 2014 J
2
. L _..-......~.. .......----..
CENTRAL DISmlC - CALIF. ORNIA
EASTERN DIVISiON. ._~~~~~_u.:r.~
3
\........ ......-.- ....... . ... .
4
L
1
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
DANILO ARCE, et aL.,
CASE NUMBER:
10
ED CV 14-2485-VAP (SPx)
11
Plaintiff
12
13
v.
VANESSA OSARIO, et aL.
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE
COURT
14
15
Defendant(s).
16
17
18
19
The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the
County
of San Bernardino for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below.
"The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and 'a suit commenced in a state
20
court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.'"
21
Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R. Co.
22
v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted to create a right ofremoval,
23
those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. .l Nevada v. Bank of America
24
Corp., 672 F.3d 661,667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
25
Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove "any civil
26
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
27
jurisdiction." 28 U.S.c. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The
28
removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v.
CV-136 (12/14)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Page 1 of3
,
( ~
1
Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676,682 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67. "Under the plain
2
terms of § 1441 (a), in order properly to remove- (an J action pursuant to that provision, (the
3
removing defendantJ must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal
4
courts." Syngenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be
5
remanded, as "(sJubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and. . . the district court must
6
remand if it lacks jurisdiction." Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346
7
F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district
8
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.c. § 1447(c). It is
9
"elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and
10
may be raised at anytimé by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua
11
sponte by the trial or reviewing court." Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2
12
(9th Cir. 1988).
13
14
15
From a review of the Notice of Removal and the state court records provided, it is evident
that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case, for the following reasons.
It No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified:
16
o The Complaint does not include any claim "arising under the Constitution, laws,
17
or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.c. § 1331.
18
o Removing defendant(s) asserts that the affirmative defenses at issue give rise to
federal question jurisdiction, but "the existence of federal jurisdiction depends
solely on the plaintiffs claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those
19
20
claims." ARCO EnvtL. Remediation, L.L.c. v. Dept. of
Health and Envtl. Quality,
213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). An "affirmative defense based on federal law"
21
does not "render(J an action brought in state court removable." Berg v. Leason, 32
22
F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994). A "case may not be removed to federal court on the
basis of a federal defense. . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiffs
complaint, and even ifboth parties admit that the defense is the only question truly
at issue in the case." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust,
23
24
463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983).
25
26
It The underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and
governed by the laws of the State of California.
27
28
CV-136 (12/14)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Page 2 of3
l.
1
It Diversity jurisdiction is lacking:
2
o Every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.c. §
1332(a).
3
4
o The Complaint does not allege damages in excess of
5
defendant(s) has not shown, by a preponderance of
6
$75,000, and removing
the evidence, that the amount
in controversy requirement has been met. .l Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 683.
7
o The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited civil action that does not
exceed $25,000.
8
9 IT is THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior
10 Court of California listed above, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
11
IT is SO ORDERED.
12
13
Date: lv( A ~
v
~tk.
nited States District Judge
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CV.136 (12/1)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
Page 3 of3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?