7 Eleven Corporation v. Jesus A. Piedra Jr., et al

Filing 7

ORDER Summarily Remanding Improperly Removed Action by Judge Andrew J. Guilford; remanding case to Orange County Superior, Case number 30-2015-00777694. (twdb)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

7-ELEVEN CORPORATION,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

JESUS A. PIEDRA, JR., et al.,

16

Defendants.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. SA CV 15-0786 AG (JCGx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION

18

The Court will summarily remand this unlawful detainer action to state court

19
20

because Defendant removed it improperly.

21

On May 20, 2015, Defendant Jesus A. Piedra, Jr., having been sued in what

22

appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, lodged a

23

Notice of Removal of that action in this Court (“Notice”) and also presented a request

24

to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.] The Court has denied the latter

25

application under separate cover because the action was improperly removed. To

26

prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order

27

to remand the action to state court.

28

//
1

1

Simply stated, Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the

2

first place, in that Defendants do not competently allege facts supplying either

3

diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and so removal is improper. 28 U.S.C.

4

§ 1441(a); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Notably, even if

5

complete diversity of citizenship exists, Defendant cannot properly remove the action

6

because Defendant resides in the forum state. (See Notice at 1, 2); see also 28 U.S.C.

7

§ 1441(b)(2).

8
9

Nor does Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer proceeding raise any federal legal
question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331

10

encompasses civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

11

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer

12

alleges a cause of action arising under the laws of the State of California. (See Notice,

13

Ex. A.) To be sure, Defendant indicates that he has asserted a counterclaim against

14

Plaintiff under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq. (See

15

Notice at 2.) However, a federal law counterclaim may not serve as a basis for federal

16

question jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (“[A] federal

17

counterclaim, even when compulsory, does not establish ‘arising under’ jurisdiction.”).

18

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the

19

Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Central Justice Center, 700 Civic

20

Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

21

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the

22

state court; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

23
24
25
26

DATED: June 01, 2015

_______________
HON. ANDREW J. GUILFORD
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28

2