Primary Resources Network, Inc. et al v. Ontoniel Pineda

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge David O. Carter remanding case to Orange County Superior Court, Case number 30-02015-00783683, Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (jtil)

1
JS-6
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

PRIMARY RESOURCES NETWORK
INC.,

11
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
OTONIEL PINEDA, ET AL.,
14
15

Defendant.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. CV 15-1214-DOC-(PJWx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY
REMOVED ACTION TO ORANGE COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT

Before the Court is an unlawful detainer action that Eduardo

18

Garcia removed from the Orange County Superior Court.

19

following reasons, the case is summarily remanded back to that court.1

20

On April 21, 2015, Plaintiff Primary Resources Network, Inc.

21

filed an unlawful detainer action in the Orange County Superior Court,

22

alleging that Defendants owed $1700 in past-due rent.

23

2015, Eduardo Garcia removed the action to this court, arguing that

For the

On July 29,

24
25
1

26
27
28

As an initial matter, although Mr. Garcia refers to himself as
a defendant in the state court action, it appears that he is not a
defendant but merely an interested party. If that is the case, it is
an additional reason to remand the action. See Yakama Indian Nation
v. State of Wash. Dept. of Revenue, 176 F.3d 1241, 1248-49 (9th Cir.
1999) (right to remove case is vested exclusively in defendants).

1

there was federal question jurisdiction because the resolution of the

2

action turns on questions of federal law.

3

Generally speaking, federal district courts lack subject matter

4

jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions like this one because they

5

are grounded in state, not federal, law and do not become federal

6

cases when a defendant raises a federal question as an affirmative

7

defense or counterclaim.

8

(2009) (“Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or

9

anticipated defense. . .[or] rest upon an actual or anticipated

See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60

10

counterclaim.”) (internal citations omitted).

11

from the face of the Complaint that there is no diversity jurisdiction

12

under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because, even if Garcia could establish

13

diversity, the amount in controversy is less than $10,000.

14

result, Garcia’s removal of the action was improper and the case will

15

be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings.

16

U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th

17

Cir. 1992).

18

Further, it is clear

As a

See 28

IT IS ORDERED that (1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this case

19

is REMANDED to the Orange County Superior Court - Central Justice

20

Center, 700 Civic Center Drive West, Santa Ana, CA 92701; (2) the

21

clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court;

22

and (3) the clerk shall serve copies of the Order on the parties.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24

DATED: August 6, 2015

25
_____________________________
DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27

Presented by:

28
______________________________
PATRICK J. WALSH
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
C:\Users\dgoltz\AppData\Local\Temp\notes6D5FA7\Pineda.wpd

2