Arnel Management Company v. Miriam Cecilia Leal

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge James V. Selna remanding case to Orange County Superior Court, Case number 30-02015-00797425. See Order for details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter) (jtil)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

SOUTHERN DIVISION

11

ARNEL MANAGEMENT COMPANY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.
MIRIAM CECILIA LEAL et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

) Case No. SA CV 15-01513-JVS (DFMx)
)
) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
) STATE COURT
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

18
The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for

19
20

the County of Orange for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below.
“The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in a

21
22

state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of

23

Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting

24

Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted

25

to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.

26

Id.; Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles,

27

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

28

///

1

Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any

2

civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have

3

original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir.

4

2013). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego

5

Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67.

6

“Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that

7

provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that original subject-matter

8

jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to

9

do so requires that the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be

10

waived, and . . . the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo.

11

Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). “If at any time

12

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

13

case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). It is “elementary that the subject matter

14

jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by

15

one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or

16

reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988).

17

From a review of the Notice of Removal and the state court records provided, it is

18

evident that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case, for the

19

following reasons.

20

No basis appears for federal question jurisdiction. The Complaint does not include

21

any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 1331. Removing defendant(s) asserts that the affirmative defenses at issue give rise to

23

federal question jurisdiction, but “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the

24

plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl.

25

Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir.

26

2000). An “affirmative defense based on federal law” does not “render[] an action brought

27

in state court removable.” Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994). A “case may

28

not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is
2

1

anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the

2

only question truly at issue in the case.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers

3

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). The underlying action is an unlawful detainer

4

proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the State of California.

5

Diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. The Complaint does not allege damages in

6

excess of $75,000; to the contrary, the Complaint expressly states that the amount

7

demanded is less than $10,000. Defendant has not shown, by a preponderance of the

8

evidence, that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. 28 U.S.C. § 1332;

9

Abrego Abrego, 443 F.3d at 683.

10
11
12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED
to the Superior Court of California listed above, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Additionally, this is Defendant’s second attempt to remove this unlawful detainer

13

action to federal court. The previous attempt resulted in an order summarily remanding the

14

action to state court on August 11, 2015. Case No. SA CV 15-01244-DOC (DFMx) (Dkt.

15

8). Accordingly, Defendant is notified and warned that any subsequent attempts to remove

16

the underlying state unlawful detainer action to this Court may result in the Court taking

17

additional measures, which may include ordering Defendant to appear in person before the

18

Court and show cause why he should not be monetarily sanctioned and/or designated as a

19

vexatious litigant.

20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
22
23
24

Dated: September 22, 2015
___________________________________
HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3