Moreno Valley Hemlock Limited Partnership v. Sandra Sanchez et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS MOOT by Judge Manuel L. Real: IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case Number RIC1712776, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 3 is DENIED as moot. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) (gk)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. EDCV 17-01719-R (RAOx)

MORENO VALLEY HEMLOCK
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS MOOT

v.
SANDRA SANCHEZ, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

I.

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Moreno Valley Hemlock Limited Partnership (“Plaintiff”) filed an
unlawful detainer action in Riverside County Superior Court against Defendants
Sandra Sanchez and Does 1-10, on or about July 13, 2017. Notice of Removal
(“Removal”) and Attached Complaint (“Compl.”) and Demurrer, Dkt. No. 1.
Defendants are allegedly unauthorized tenants of real property located in Moreno
Valley, California (“the property”). Compl. ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the
property. Id. ¶ 1, 4.
Defendant Sandra Sanchez (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on
August 24, 2017, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2.

The same day, Defendant filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt.

1
2

No. 3.

3

II.

4

DISCUSSION

5

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

6

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

7

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

8

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject

9

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

10

163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

11

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,

12

336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an

13

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

14

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting

15

internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to

16

federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

17

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption”

18

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th

19

Cir. 1992).

20

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

21

existence of a federal question. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant

22

part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of

23

which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section

24

1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

25

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See

26

id. § 1331.

27

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint

28

makes clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the
2

1

instant matter under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. First, there is no federal question apparent

2

from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful

3

detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203

4

GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful

5

detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac

6

Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL

7

234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack

8

of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an

9

unlawful detainer claim).
Second, there is no merit to Defendant’s argument that the demurrer involves

10
11

a “determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.”

12

Removal at 2. It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on

13

the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s

14

complaint, and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only

15

question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S.Ct.

16

2425, 2430, 96 L.Ed.2d 318 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the

17

unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, those

18

defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because

19

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as

20

artfully pled, the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

21

///

22

///

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
3

1

///

2

III.

3

CONCLUSION

4
5
6
7
8

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County of Riverside, forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
10

September 20, 2017
17
DATED: _____________
_
________________________________________
________________________________________
__ __
________ _

11

MANUEL
MANUEL L. REAL
N
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13

Presented by:

14
15

________________________________________

16

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4