JK Management Company v. Benito Marquez et al

Filing 8

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney granting 7 EX PARTE APPLICATION to Remand Case to State Court Case Remanded to Superior Court of California, County of Orange; Case number 30-02016-00871572-CL-UD-CJC. (see document for details). MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (dro)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 16-02130-CJC(KESx)

Date: December 5, 2016

Title: JK MANAGEMENT COMPANY V. BENITO MARQUEZ AND MARTHA RIVERA

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa Kunig
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION AND REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT
On November 30, 2016, Defendants Benito Marquez and Martha Rivera removed
this unlawful detainer action originally filed in Superior Court, County of Orange by
Plaintiff JK Management Company. (Dkt. 1 [hereinafter “Notice of Removal”].) A
defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court if the
federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). A
federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions
arising under federal law or (2) are between diverse parties and involve an amount in
controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The defendant removing
the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly construed
against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)
(“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in
the first instance.”). Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists may be raised by the
Court sua sponte at any time. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Plaintiff also filed an ex
parte application on December 2, 2016, asking this Court to remand the case. (Dkt. 7.)
Defendants removed the action to this Court asserting federal question subject
matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. (Notice of Removal at 2.) According

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 16-02130-CJC(KESx)

Date: December 5, 2016
Page 2

to the Notice of Removal, a statutory basis for federal jurisdiction exists because
“Defendant withheld rent due to Plaintiff discriminating against defendant by violating
[the] Fair [H]ousing [A]ct and 42 U.S.C. [§] 3604(f)(3)(a) by refusing to permit,
reasonable modification of the premises necessary for afford full enjoyment of the
premises to Defendant roommate and co-tenant who is physically handicapped.” (Id. at
2–3.) Specifically, they claim that the doorways, bathrooms, walls, and environmental
controls violate 42 U.S.C. § 3604(f). (Id. at 3.) Defendants claim that “Federal question
jurisdiction exists because Defendants pleading depend [sic] on the determination of
Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at 3.)
Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” federal question jurisdiction is present
only when “a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded
complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This occurs when
the well-pleaded complaint “establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action
or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial
question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust
for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 27–28 (1983). A defense or counterclaim based on federal law
does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 10. If it appears that the district
court lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, the
case must be remanded to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Plaintiff’s Complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California
law. (Dkt. 1 Ex. A.) This action therefore does not arise out of federal law. The federal
basis asserted by Defendants is at most a defense to the unlawful detainer action, and thus
does not confer subject matter jurisdiction. See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071,
1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer
jurisdiction on a federal court.”). Nor does the straightforward federal issue presented by
this defense—whether there is compliance with various disability statutes—present a
“substantial federal issue.” See Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g &
Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). The Court accordingly finds that it is without subject
matter jurisdiction to resolve this matter. Plaintiff’s ex parte application is GRANTED
and this action is hereby REMANDED to Superior Court, County of Orange.
nm
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MKU