PEA Enterprises v. Jerome Richard Shawke

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge John A. Kronstadt remanding case to Riverside County Superior Court, Case number PSC1504722. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Califor nia for Riverside County for procedural defects and lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); and (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court. (See document for specifics.) (Case Terminated. Made JS-6.) (iva)

1
2
JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PEA ENTERPRISES, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

JEROME RICHARD SHAWKE,
et al.,

15
16

Defendants.

) Case No. ED CV 15-2330-JAK (SP)
)
)
) ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
) IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION
)
)
)
)
)
)

17
18

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court summarily

19 because defendant removed it improperly.
20

On November 12, 2015, defendant Jerome Richard Shawke, having been

21 sued in what – so far as the Court can tell – appears to be a routine unlawful
22 detainer action in California Superior Court, lodged a Notice of Removal of that
23 action to this Court. There are defects in the removal process defendant employed,
24 and it appears there is no basis for this Court’s jurisdiction in any event.
25

First, defendant failed to attach to his Notice of Removal “a copy of all

26 process, pleadings, and orders served upon such defendant” in the state action, as
27 required for removal to be effective. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). In particular, he did
28 not attach a copy of the complaint, but instead attached only the counter-request to
1

1 set the unlawful detainer action for trial, which defendant himself filed in the state
2 action. Thus, the only indication the Court has about the nature of the underlying
3 state action is from this counter-request to set the case for trial.1 Defendant’s
4 failure to attach a copy of the complaint renders the removal defective and, by
5 itself, warrants remand.
6

Second, the Notice of Removal also fails to contain “a short and plain

7 statement of the grounds for removal” as required. See 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). It
8 does contain a section titled “Basis for Removal” (see Notice of Removal at 3-5);
9 however, this consists of nine paragraphs of largely unintelligible assertions; there
10 is nothing “short and plain” about it. To the extent a basis for removal can be
11 discerned, it appears plaintiff is asserting federal question jurisdiction. As
12 discussed below, there is no indication of any legitimate basis for federal question
13 jurisdiction. And as a whole, the lengthy Notice of Removal and its many
14 attachments is a largely incoherent amalgam of seemingly irrelevant and frivolous
15 legal and factual assertions.
16

Third, there is no indication plaintiff could have brought this action in

17 federal court in the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts
18 supplying either diversity or federal question jurisdiction, making removal
19 improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc.,
20 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). As noted, it appears
21 defendant has asserted federal question jurisdiction as his basis for removal. See
22 28 U.S.C. § 1331. But he does not actually allege that the underlying state
23 complaint raises any federal question. Instead, he asserts his own defense case
24 raises federal questions. See Notice of Removal at 3 (“the freeman Mr Shawke suit
25
26
1

The Court attempted to look up online the Superior Court’s records of
the case, No. PSC1504722, but was unable to locate it on the Riverside Superior
28 Court’s website (http://www.riverside.courts.ca.gov/publicaccess.shtml).
27

2

1 involves 26 or more below C. listed matters of law”), 5 (referring to “matters of
2 law in the brief below”). “A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to
3 confer federal jurisdiction.” Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804,
4 808, 106 S. Ct. 3229, 92 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1986); accord More-Thomas v. Alaska
5 Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). Any federal claim must arise in the
6 underlying complaint in order to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Merrell Dow, 478
7 U.S. at 808 (“the question for removal jurisdiction must . . . be determined by
8 reference to the ‘well-pleaded complaint’”). Although, as noted, plaintiff failed to
9 attach the underlying complaint, there is no indication the underlying unlawful
10 detainer action raises a federal question.
11

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

12 Superior Court of California for Riverside County for procedural defects and lack
13 of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); and (2) the Clerk
14 send a certified copy of this Order to the state court.
15
16
17 DATED: December 8, 2015
18

HONORABLE JOHN A. KRONSTADT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 Presented by:
20
21 _________________________
Sheri Pym
22 United States Magistrate Judge
23
24
25
26
27
28
3