DLI Properties, LLC v. James M Ball et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION TO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, remanding case to Riverside County Superior Court, Case number SWC1600091. Case Terminated, Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 16-904 JGB (DTBx)

Date May 6, 2016

Title DLI Properties, LLC v. James M Ball 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):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:

Order REMANDING the Action to California Superior Court for the
County of Riverside (IN CHAMBERS)

On January 15, 2016, Plaintiff DLI Properties, LLC, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
against Defendants James Ball, Herminia Ball (collectively, “Defendants”), and fictitious
Defendants 1 through 5. (Complaint, Doc. No. 1-1 at 10.) Defendants removed the action to this
Court on May 4, 2016. (Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1.)
I.

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.").
Page 1 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

II.

DISCUSSION

The Notice of Removal contends that federal question jurisdiction in this case exists
because portions of the California Civil Code violate the Equal Protection Clause of the United
States Constitution. (Notice of Removal at 2-3.)
In order for removal to be proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, Defendants
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).
On the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California
state law action. (See Complaint.) “[A]n unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise
under federal law but is purely a creature of California law.” Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C
11-01932 LB, 2011 WL 2194117 at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (citing Wescom Credit Union v.
Dudley, No. 10-8203, 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010)). Whatever federal
questions Defendants might raise in defense to the unlawful detainer action are insufficient to
confer removal jurisdiction over it. See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barcenas, 2012 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 173586, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012) (“Because this is an unlawful detainer action, a
federal question does not present itself.”); Aurora Loan Servs. v. Orozco, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
172200, at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (explaining that unlawful detainer actions are purely
matters of state law and that “any federal defense Defendant raises is irrelevant with regard to
jurisdiction”).
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 on Defendants as required by California Code of
Civil Procedure § 1161a. Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 168 (1977). Accordingly,
due to the absence of a federal claim or substantial question of federal law, Defendants have not
shown that the Court has jurisdiction based on a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
III.

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 Defendants have not met their burden of establishing
that this case is properly in federal court. See In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota),
Page 2 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

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 California Superior Court
for the County of Riverside.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG