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)

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