Ralph Peterson v. Ed Hanley et al

Filing 3

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Josephine Staton Tucker Remanding case to Orange County Superior Court, Case number 30-2011 00508886. (Certified copies of docket sheet and Order to Remand sent to State Court) Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (db)

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 11-1591-JST (RNBx)
Title: Ralph Peterson v. Ed Hanley, et al.

Date: October 18, 2011

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE STATON TUCKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ellen Matheson
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

Not present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. 30-2011
00508886
Plaintiff Ralph Peterson filed this unlawful detainer action in Orange County Superior
Court on September 16, 2011, Case Number 30-2011-00508886. On October 14, 2011,
Defendants Ed Hanley and Kathy Hanley removed this action. (Doc. 1.) Where a federal district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case, and has the discretion to do so
sua sponte. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190,
1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court
sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Orange County Superior Court.
When reviewing a notice of removal, “it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside the
limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon
the party asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir.
2009) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal
quotation marks omitted)). Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal
jurisdiction,” thus “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. Moreover, removal is
proper only in “state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court . . . .”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “The presence or absence of federalquestion jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that
federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s
properly pleaded complaint.” Id. “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).

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 11-1591-JST (RNBx)
Title: Ralph Peterson v. Ed Hanley, et al.

Date: October 18, 2011

Here, Defendants’ notice of removal does not state the basis for subject matter
jurisdiction. Though Defendants indicated diversity as a basis for jurisdiction on their Civil
Cover Sheet, they also acknowledged in the same document that both Plaintiff and Defendants
are citizens of California. Moreover, because the underlying action here is an unlawful detainer,
a federal question does not present itself. See IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No.
EDCV 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte remanding an action
to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an
unlawful detainer claim); Galileo Fi. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411,
*1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a
cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is
clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this case, and REMANDS it to Orange County Superior Court.

Initials of Preparer: enm

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2