Scott C. Barker v. Corey Lee Barker et al

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING CASE AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMAPAUPERIS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02016-00880070-CL. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro) Modified on 12/22/2016 (dro).

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 16-2224-AG (JCGx)

Title

SCOTT C. BARKER v. COREY LEE BARKER ET AL.

Present: The
Honorable

December 22, 2016

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Proceedings:

Date

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE AND
DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS

This Unlawful Detainer action was recently removed to this Court by Defendnat Corey Lee
Barker.
The Court DENIES Defendant’s application and request to proceed in forma pauperis
(Dkt. Nos. 2 & 3) and REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the
County of Orange for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Court must jealously guard its jurisdiction. Olmos v. Residential Credit Sols., Inc., 92 F. Supp.
3d 954, 955 (C.D. Cal. 2015). This jealousy gets expressed in a lot of ways. First, federal
courts start off assuming that cases are outside of their power to rule. Kokkonen v. Guardian
Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Courts require parties arguing for jurisdiction to
establish otherwise. Id. Second, federal courts demand that parties arguing for jurisdiction
address jurisdiction as soon as they get to the federal courthouse doors, in their complaints
or notices of removal. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a). Third, federal courts
may raise jurisdiction whenever they think it’s a question, at any point in a case, on their own
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

SACV 16-2224-AG (JCGx)

Date

December 22, 2016

Title

SCOTT C. BARKER v. COREY LEE BARKER ET AL.

without the parties’ involvement. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Fourth, federal courts are
particularly skeptical of cases removed from state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that defendants
have the burden of establishing, by a preponderance of evidence, that removal is proper. See
id. Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” so “[f]ederal
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt” about jurisdiction. Id.
The Court has no subject matter jurisdiction over this case. The underlying action is an
unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the State of
California. And every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(a).
DISPOSITION
The Court DENIES Defendant’s application and request to proceed in forma pauperis
(Dkt. Nos. 2 & 3) and REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the
County of Orange for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

:
Initials of Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2

lmb

0