Sidney Cohn v. Charlotte Spadaro, et al

Filing 9

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that federal question jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter ju risdiction, this action is hereby remanded to San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. UDFS1702582. See 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c). Defendants' Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time (Docket No. 6) and Motion to Remand (Docket No. 7) are denied as moot. (See document for details) Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6

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

ED CV 17-1040 PA (KSx)

Title

Sidney Cohn v. Charlotte Spadaro, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

May 30, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

V.R. Vallery

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed on May 24, 2017, by defendants Charlotte
Spadaro and Charlotte Spadaro, Trustee of the 6th Street Trust (collectively “Defendants”). In her
Complaint, plaintiff Sidney Cohn (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single state law claim for unlawful detainer.
Defendants assert that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal
jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule,
“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus,
plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 318. “A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the
defense of pre-emption.” Id. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (emphasis in original). The
only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such
as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First
Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, the underlying Complaint contains only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer.
Defendants allege that removal is proper because “[t]his case involves a federal issue, whereas
Defendants have become aware that Plaintiff acquired property from Defendant, the 6th Street Trust,
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

ED CV 17-1040 PA (KSx)

Date

Title

May 30, 2017

Sidney Cohn v. Charlotte Spadaro, et al.

through last-minute fees which were actually usurious. Said violation should bar Plaintiff from the relief
which Plaintiff has requested . . . .” (Notice of Removal, ¶ 6.) However, Defendants’ allegations do not
provide a proper basis for removal, as neither a federal defense nor an actual or anticipated federal
counterclaim forms a basis for removal. See, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 61-62, 129 S.
Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009). Additionally, Defendants’ reliance on Beneficial Nat. Bank v.
Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 123 S. Ct. 2058, 156 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2003) is misplaced because that case involved a
plaintiff’s claims for violation of state usury laws, which the Court found were completely preempted by
the National Bank Act. Measured by the claims asserted in the plaintiff’s complaint rather than the
defendant’s anticipated defenses or counterclaims, the action was therefore removable under the
complete preemption doctrine. See Beneficial Nat. Bank, 539 U.S. at 11, 123 S. Ct. at 2064. Here, by
contrast, the Complaint’s single state law claim for unlawful detainer is not completely preempted by
federal law, and therefore does not present a claim “arising under” federal law.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that federal
question jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this
action is hereby remanded to San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. UDFS1702582. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). Defendants’ Request to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot.
Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application to Shorten Time (Docket No. 6) and Motion to Remand (Docket
No. 7) are denied as moot.1/
IT IS SO ORDERED.

1/

Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand requests an award of the attorney’s fees Plaintiff incurred as a
result of the removal of this action. However, in violation of the Central District’s Local Rules,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand was filed on the same date that the parties met and conferred regarding the
filing of the motion. See L.R. 7-3 (“[C]ounsel contemplating the filing of any motion shall first contact
opposing counsel to discuss thoroughly, preferably in person, the substance of the contemplated motion
and any potential resolution. The conference shall take place at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of
the motion.”). Had Plaintiff waited to file her motion, as she was required to under the Local Rules, she
would have avoided incurring attorney’s fees. As a result, and taking into account Defendants’ pro se
status, the Court declines to award Plaintiff the attorney’s fees incurred as a result of the removal of this
action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 141, 126 S.
Ct. 704, 711, 163 L. Ed. 2d 547 (2005) (“Absent unusual circumstances, courts may award attorney’s
fees under § 1447(c) only where the removing party lacked an objectively reasonable basis for seeking
removal.”).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2