Wilmington Trust, National Association v. Maricela Avila et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino, Case Number UDBS1700925, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See document for further details. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) (gk)

1 1

JS-6 / REMAND

21
31
4
5
6
7
g

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILMINGTON TRUST,et al.,

9

CASE NUMBER:

10

ED CV 17-1700-DMG (PLAx)

11
Plaintiff
12

v.

13

MARICELA AVILA,et al.,
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
STATE COURT

14
15

Defendant(s).

The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the

17

18 County of San Bernardino
19 II

for lack of suUject 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 ~n~enta 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 of removal,
23 those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. dI

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

2 action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original
6
27 jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. 4 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 Abre~o v

CV-136 (12/14)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COI~RT

Page 1 of 3

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 g 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision,[the

3

removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal

4

courts." Svneenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be

5

remanded, as "[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and ...the district court must

6

remand if it lacks jurisdiction." Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Assn 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. 4 1447(c). It is

elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and
9 "
10

maybe raised at anytime 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

9th
12 ( 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.
u No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified:


16
17
18
19
2
0
21
22
23
24

0 The Complaint does not include any claim "arising under the Constitution,laws,

or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. 4 1331.
u Removing defendants) asserts that the affirmative defenses at issue give rise to

federal question jurisdiction, but "the existence offederal jurisdiction depends
solely on the plaintiff's claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those
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"
does not "render[] an action brought in state court removable." Berg v. Leason, 32
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 if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly
at issue in the case." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust,
463 U.S. 1, 14(1983).

25
The underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and
governed by the laws of the State of California.

2
6
27
28

CV-136 (12/14)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Page 2 of 3

1 II
2
3

u Diversity jurisdiction is lacking:
0 Every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. 4
1332(a).
u The Complaint does not allege damages in excess of $75,000, and removing
defendants) has not plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy requirement
has been met. dI see Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,
_U.S._,135 S.Ct. 547, 554(2014).

4
5
6
~
8

0 The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited civil action that does not
exceed $25,000.

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: August 24, 2017
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
2
0
21
22
23
24
25
2
6
27
28

CV-136 (12/14)

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

Page 3 of 3