Hongzhi Guan v. Robert L. Jones et al

Filing 6

ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02016-00874150-CL-UD-HNB, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (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. 8:17-cv-00005-JLS-DFM
Title: Hongzhi Guan v. Robert L. Jones et al

Date: January 9, 2017

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerreo
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

Not Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This unlawful detainer action was originally filed by Hongzhi Guan in Orange
County Superior Court. Robert L. Jones and Igna Suarez Jones, who appear pro per,
purport to remove the present action to this Court. Because the present action was
improperly removed, and because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over it, the
Court remands this case to Orange County Superior Court.
The Court may raise the issue of subject matter jurisdiction at any time, sua
sponte. See U.S. Catholic Conference v. Abortion Rights Mobilization, 487 U.S. 72, 79
(1988). For cases removed from state court, “[i]f 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). 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). To establish federal
question jurisdiction, the “federal question must appear on the face of a well-pleaded
complaint.” Am. Nat’l Red Cross v. S.G., 505 U.S. 247, 258 (1992) (emphasis added).

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1

JS-6

____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-00005-JLS-DFM
Title: Hongzhi Guan v. Robert L. Jones et al

Date: January 9, 2017

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. 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 so-called “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 limits the amount sought to an amount “not exceed[ing] $10,000.”
Because removal was improper and because the Court lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over this action, the Court hereby remands the present action to the Orange
County Superior Court, Case No. 30-2016-00974150-CL-UD-HNB.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Preparer: tg

______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2