David Padua v. Robert Pace et al

Filing 6

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton granting 5 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand Case to State Court Case Remanded to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, 30-2016-00877484-CL-UD-CJC. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (dro)

JS-6
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:16-cv-1992-JLS-KESx
Title: David Padua v. Robert Pace, et al.

Date: November 14, 2016

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION TO REMAND (Doc. 5)
Before the Court is an Ex Parte Application to Remand filed by Plaintiff David
Padua. (Ex Parte App., Doc. 5.) Defendants Robert Pace and Therese Pace were served
the Ex Parte Application and have not filed any Opposition. (Proof of Service, Doc. 5-2.)
On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Complaint in unlawful detainer in Orange
County Superior Court against Defendants. (Compl., Doc. 5-2.) On November 2, 2016,
Defendants removed the case to this Court alleging federal question jurisdiction. (Notice
of Removal, Doc. 1.) Plaintiff argues that no federal question exists and seeks remand.
(Ex Parte App.) Because the present action was improperly removed, and because the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over it, the Court GRANTS the Ex Parte
Application and REMANDS this case to Orange County Superior Court.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction
only over matters specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court’s subject-matter
jurisdiction may be premised on the presence of a federal question, or it may be premised
on diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331–1332. As the proponent of the Court’s
jurisdiction, a removing defendant bears the burden of establishing it. Abrego Abrego v.
The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006).
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:16-cv-1992-JLS-KESx
Title: David Padua v. Robert Pace, et al.

Date: November 14, 2016

Although the Notice of Removal states that a claim in the present action arises
under federal law, a review of the complaint reveals that it is a straightforward unlawful
detainer action proceeding under state law, which is believed to be subject to a number of
federal defenses. (See Notice of Removal ¶ 7 (referring to the “‘Protecting Tenants at
Foreclosure Act of 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. § 5201” and articulating that federal law provides
for a ninety-day notice period prior to the filing of any stat eviction proceeding).) At
best, Defendants rely upon a federal defense to a state-law claim. The assertion of a
federal defense to a state-law claim does not convert the state-law claim into one “arising
under” federal law for purposes of federal-question jurisdiction. See Moore-Thomas v.
Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009) (setting forth the “well-pleaded
complaint rule”). Therefore, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction.
Nor does the present action meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. The
Complaint expressly states that the amount in controversy is “UNDER $10,000.00.” See
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Moreover, in the absence of a federal question, where the Court’s
jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship, a removing defendant may not be a
resident of the forum state. Here, Defendants’ reported address is the property at issue in
this action (located in Huntington Beach, California), and they are therefore clearly forum
defendants who lack the ability to remove a state-court action. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, the Ex Parte Application is GRANTED. The Court
therefore REMANDS this matter to the Superior Court of California in Orange County
(30-2016-00877484-CL-UD-CJC) and closes this case.

Initials of Preparer: tg

_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2