Advanced Group 16-00114 LP v. Robert Davis et al
Filing
6
ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02016-00876818-CL-UD-NJC. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)
JS-6
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:16-cv-2028-JLS-DFMx
Title: Advanced Group 16-114 LP v. Robert Davis, et al.
Date: November 15, 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 REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. 30-2016-00876818CL-UD-NJC
Plaintiff Advanced Group 16-114 LP filed this unlawful detainer action against
Defendant Robert Davis and Does 1-10 on September 22, 2016 in Orange County
Superior Court. (Notice of Removal, “Complaint,” Doc. 1.) Davis removed the case to
this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
(Notice of Removal at 2, Doc. 1.) Where a federal district court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, it must remand the case, and has the discretion to do so sua sponte. See
Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th
Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court sua
sponte 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. When reviewing a notice of removal,
“it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts
and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”
Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Abrego
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:16-cv-2028-JLS-DFMx
Title: Advanced Group 16-114 LP v. Robert Davis, et al.
Date: November 15, 2016
Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks
omitted)). Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and
thus “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, removal is proper only in
“state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court . . . .”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “If at any time before final
judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
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 ¶ 6 (referring to the “‘Protecting Tenants at
Foreclosure Act 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. § 5220” and articulating that federal law provides for a
ninety-day notice period prior to the filing of a foreclosure eviction).) 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 “does not exceed $10,000.”
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, Defendant’s reported address is the property at
issue in this action (located in Fullerton, 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).
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 8:16-cv-2028-JLS-DFMx
Title: Advanced Group 16-114 LP v. Robert Davis, et al.
Date: November 15, 2016
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over this case, and REMANDS it to Orange County Superior Court, Case
Number 30-2016-00876818-CL-UD-NJC.
Initials of Preparer: tg
_____________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?