Sunflower Associates LLC v. Saber A Al Smadi et al

Filing 11

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION by Judge David O. Carter: RE 7 8 MOTION to Remand Case to State Court. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (twdb)

1
2
3

JS-6

4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

SUNFLOWER ASSOCIATES LLC,
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14
15

SABER A. AL SMADI, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Case No. SA CV 15-1111 DOC (JCGx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION

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

18
19

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

because Defendant removed it improperly.
On July 14, 2015, Saber A. Al Smadi (“Defendant”), having been sued in what

20
21

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

22

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

23

to proceed in forma pauperis (“Request”). [Dkt. Nos. 1, 4.] That same day, Sunflower

24

Associates LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a motion to remand (“Motion”). [Dkt. No. 8.] The

25

Court has denied Defendant’s Request under separate cover because the action was

26

improperly removed. To prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the

27

Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.

28

//
1

1

In the Notice, Defendant primarily contends that removal is proper under

2

28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), on the grounds that “the California Civil Code procedures

3

authorizing evictions . . . discriminate[] unfairly against . . . Ethnic-Surname

4

Americans” and thus violate 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1982. (Notice at 6-7.)

5

As a rule, a successful petition for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) must

6

satisfy the two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 384

7

U.S. 780 (1966), and City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 (1966).

8

“First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given

9

to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights.” Patel v.

10

Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006). “Second, petitioners must assert

11

that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by

12

reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the

13

state courts to ignore the federal rights.” Id.

14

Assuming, without deciding, that Defendant satisfies the first prong of this test,

15

he fails to satisfy the second. That is, Defendant fails to identify any “state statute

16

or . . . constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore

17

[Defendant’s] federal rights.” See id. (emphasis added); see also Martingale Invs.,

18

LLC v. Frausto, 2013 WL 5676237, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013) (remanding

19

unlawful detainer action where defendant failed to identify “a California statute or

20

constitutional provision that commands state courts to discriminate against parties with

21

ethnic surnames or otherwise discriminate on linguistic or racial grounds”).

22

Thus, there is no basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).

23

Separately, Defendant contends that the Court may exercise federal-question

24

jurisdiction over the action. (Notice at 7-8); see 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(a). Pursuant

25

to the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal-question jurisdiction exists “only when a

26

federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

27

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, Plaintiff’s underlying

28

complaint asserts a cause of action for unlawful detainer. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 20-23.]
2

1

“Unlawful detainer is an exclusively state law claim that does not require the

2

resolution of any substantial question of federal law.” Martingale Invs., 2013 WL

3

5676237, at *2. To be sure, in the Notice, Defendant generally invokes federal laws

4

concerning “fair housing, retaliatory evictions, and related racial discrimination,” and

5

also references, in passing, several federal statutes and constitutional provisions.

6

(Notice at 3, 8.) However, none of these federal laws appear on the face of Plaintiff’s

7

well-pleaded complaint, and may not serve as a basis for federal-question jurisdiction.

8

[See Dkt. No. 1 at 20-23]; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Vaden v. Discover

9

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (holding that federal-question jurisdiction “cannot be

10

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense” nor on “an actual or anticipated

11

counterclaim”).

12

Thus, there is no basis for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).1

13

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Plaintiff’s Motion be GRANTED2;

14

(2) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange,

15

Central Justice Center, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701, for lack of

16

subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (3) the Clerk send a

17

certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (4) the Clerk serve copies of this

18

Order on the parties.

19
20
21

DATED: July 22, 2015

_______________
HON. DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27

1

Defendant acknowledges that the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the action. (See
Notice at 14.)

2

28

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s “Ex-Parte Application to Shorten Time on Plaintiff’s Motion to
Remand This Case to State Court,” [Dkt. No. 7], is DENIED AS MOOT.

3