Tracy Piazza Leaton v. Chul Jong Yoo
MINUTE ORDER REMANDING the Case, on the Courts Own Motion, to the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino (IN CHAMBERS) by Judge Jesus G. Bernal: (see document image for specifics). IT IS SO ORDERED. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (ad)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
EDCV 18-00693 JGB (SHKx)
Date April 12, 2018
Title Tracy Piazza Leaton v. Chul Jong Yoo
Present: The Honorable
JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):
Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):
Order REMANDING the Case, on the Court’s Own Motion, to the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino (IN
On April 4, 2018, Defendant Chul Jong Yoo (“Defendant”), proceeding pro se, removed
this unlawful detainer action to this Court. (“Notice of Removal,” Dkt. No. 1.) Because this
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer action, it REMANDS the
matter to the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino.
Federal law empowers a defendant to remove an action to federal court if the district
court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). As relevant here, “[o]nly state court actions
that originally could have been filed in federal courts may be removed to federal court by the
defendant.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Subject matter jurisdiction is
invoked under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) (diversity). In his
removal motion, Defendant alleges federal question jurisdiction pursuant to the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”) and the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”). (Notice of
Removal ¶¶ 5-7.) Defendant alleges Plaintiff is a “Debt Collector” under the FDCPA and
Plaintiff violated Defendant’s rights under TILA. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.)
In order for removal to be proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, Defendant
must show that Plaintiff Tracy Piazza Leaton’s (“Plaintiff”) “‘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
Page 1 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk MG
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc.,
482 U.S. at 392. “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 Notice of Removal, Exh. A); see also Canterbury Lots 68, LLC v. De La
Torre, No. 13-cv-00712, 2013 WL 781974, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 28, 2013) (remanding action
where complaint only raised a single cause of action for unlawful detainer); Golden Union
Properties, LLC v. Amesquita, No. 10-cv-09607, 2011 WL 321095, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011)
(remanding case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where complaint contained only an
unlawful detainer claim). That a federal question may arise during the litigation in connection
with a defense or counterclaim is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction for purposes
of removal. Rivet, 522 U.S. at 475 (“A defense is not part of plaintiff’s properly pleaded
statement of his claim or defense.”) As such, removal was improper.
A district court may remand an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
on its own motion. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the
Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. The Clerk of the Court is directed to
serve a copy of this order on the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino and to
serve the parties in the customary manner.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Page 2 of 2
Initials of Deputy Clerk MG
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?