Zhuofeng Li v. Surinder M. Manaktala et al

Filing 7

ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-2016-00888917-CL-UD-NJC. (see document for details). (dro)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 ZHUOFENG LI, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) SURINDER M. MANAKTALA, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ) Case No. SA CV 17-0055 CJC (JCGx) ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION 18 The Court will summarily remand this unlawful detainer action to state court 19 20 because Defendant removed it improperly. 21 On January 10, 2017, Surinder M. Manaktala (“Defendant”) having been sued in 22 what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, lodged a 23 Notice of Removal of that action in this Court (“Notice”) and also presented a request 24 to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.] The Court has denied the latter 25 application under separate cover because the action was improperly removed. To 26 prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order 27 to remand the action to state court. 28 // 1 Simply stated, Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the 1 2 first place, in that Defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either 3 diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and so removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1441(a); see Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Notably, even if 5 complete diversity of citizenship exists, Defendant cannot properly remove the action 6 because Defendant resides in the forum state. (See Notice at 1, 3); see also 28 U.S.C. 7 § 1441(b)(2). Nor does Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer proceeding raise any federal legal 8 9 question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331 10 encompasses civil actions that arise under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 11 United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer 12 alleges a cause of action arising under the laws of the State of California. (See Notice, 13 Ex. A.) In the Notice, Defendant alleges that he has filed a counterclaim against 14 Plaintiff for violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. 15 § 1692, et seq. (Notice at 2.) However, the FDCPA does not appear on the face of 16 Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, and thus may not serve as a basis for federal- 17 question jurisdiction. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 7-9]; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; 18 Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (holding that federal-question 19 jurisdiction “cannot . . . rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”). 20 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 92832, 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 18, 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

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?