Arsenia Rose Jared v. Tonette Sherie Bell et al
Filing
6
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING Action to Superior Court of California, County of Riverside (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: (see document image for specifics). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), the Court has examined the Notice of Removal and concludes that Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that this case is properly in federal court. See 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.). For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside. IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (ad)
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
Title
Date
EDCV 15-0200 JGB (SPx)
February 6, 2015
Arsenia Rose Jared v. Tonette Sherie Bell, et al.
Present: The Honorable
JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
MAYNOR GALVEZ
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
Minute Order REMANDING Action to Superior Court of California,
County of Riverside
I. BACKGROUND
In November 2014,1 Plaintiff Arsenia Rose Jared (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer (“Complaint”) against Defendant Tonette Sherie Bell (“Defendant”) as well as
“Unauthorized Occupants in Possession” and other fictitious persons in the California Superior
Court for the County of Riverside. (“Complaint,” Doc. No. 1 at 10.) On February 3, 2015,
Defendant Bell removed the action to this Court. (“Not. of Removal,” Doc. No. 1.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
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. Federman-Bachrach & 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.”).
1
The exact date of filing is illegible.
Page 1 of 2
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk MG
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant appears to allege that removal is proper on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Not. of Removal at 2-3). In order for removal to be
proper, Defendant must show that Plaintiff’s “‘well-pleaded complaint establishes either that
federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on
resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584
F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547
U.S. 677, 689–90 (2006). “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented
on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987). “A defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her
claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).
From the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s only claim is for unlawful detainer, a
California state law action. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11–01932 LB, 2011 WL
2194117, *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (“an unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise
under federal law but is purely a creature of California law”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v.
Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010).)
Further, Plaintiff’s right to relief on the unlawful detainer claim does not depend on the
resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Rather, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment upon
establishing that the subject property was sold in accordance with California Civil Code § 2924
and that the requisite three-day notice to quit was served upon Defendant as required by
California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1161a. Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d
162, 168 (1977). Defendant claims that federal question jurisdiction exists because she is
entitled to protection under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009, 12 U.S.C. § 5201.
(Not. of Removal at 2). “A federal defense, however, does not confer jurisdiction on the court to
hear the case.” See H.O.D. Properties, LLC v. Sarkisyan, No. 13-5624, 2013 WL 4052469, at
*3; see also Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. 11-1932, 2011 WL 2194117, at *1-2 (“[T]he
[Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act] only provides tenants with federal defenses to eviction
but does not create a federal ejectment claim or any private right of action. . . . [A]n anticipated
federal defense is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction.”). Accordingly, because of the absence of
a federal claim or substantial question of federal law, Defendant has not shown that the Court has
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
IV. CONCLUSION
“If it clearly appears on the face of the [Notice of Removal] and any exhibits annexed
thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary
remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), the Court has examined
the Notice of Removal and concludes that Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that
this case is properly in federal court. See 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.”). For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS
this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 2
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Initials of Deputy Clerk MG
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?