Tara Hill Apartments v. Jerrin Jefferson et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02016-00889502-CL-UD-NJC. (see document for details). (dro)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

TARA HILL APARTMENTS,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

v.
JERRIN JEFFERSON, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. SA CV 17-0016 CJC (JCGx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION

The Court will summarily remand this unlawful detainer action to state court
because Defendants removed it improperly.
On January 5, 2017, Jerrin Jefferson, Jacqueline Jefferson (collectively, the

22

“Jeffersons”), Delton Valentine, and DOES 1 to 10 (“Defendants”), having been sued

23

in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court,

24

lodged a Notice of Removal of that action in this Court (“Notice”), and the Jeffersons

25

have also presented requests to proceed in forma pauperis (“Requests”). [Dkt. Nos. 1,

26

3, 4.] The Court has denied Defendants’ Requests under separate cover because the

27

action was improperly removed. To prevent the action from remaining in

28

jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.
1

Simply stated, Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the

1
2

first place, and so removal is improper. Notably, even if complete diversity of

3

citizenship exists, Defendants cannot properly remove the action because Defendants

4

reside in the forum state. (See Notice at 1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
Nor does Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer proceeding raise any federal legal

5
6

question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Pursuant to the “well-pleaded complaint

7

rule,” federal-question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on

8

the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

9

482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, Plaintiff’s underlying complaint asserts a cause of

10

action for unlawful detainer. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 5-9.] “Unlawful detainer is an

11

exclusively state law claim that does not require the resolution of any substantial

12

question of federal law.” Martingale Invs., LLC v. Frausto, 2013 WL 5676237, at *2

13

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013). In the Notice, Defendants assert, in conclusory fashion, that

14

“[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Demurrer, . . . depend[s] on the

15

determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” [Dkt.

16

No. 1 at 2.] However, neither a federal-law counterclaim nor a federal-law defense

17

may serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank,

18

556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (holding that federal-question jurisdiction “cannot be

19

predicated on an actual or anticipated defense” nor on “an actual or anticipated

20

counterclaim”).

21
22

//

23
24

//

25
26

//

27
28

//
2

1

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the

2

Superior Court of California, County of Orange, North Justice Center, 1275 N.

3

Berkeley Ave., Fullerton, CA 92838 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to

4

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court;

5

and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

6
7
8
9

DATED: January 12, 2017

_______________
HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3