Divine Hotels LLC v. Robert Jones Sr et al

Filing 7

ORDER by Judge David O. Carter remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02017-00897637-CL-UD-NJC. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)

1

JS-6

2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DIVINE HOTELS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16

v.
ROBERT JONES, SR., and DOES 1
TO 10,
Defendants.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

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

Case No. SA CV 17-0276 DOC (JCGx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION

The Court will summarily remand this unlawful detainer action to state court
because Defendant removed it improperly.
On February 15, 2017, Robert Jones, Sr. (“Defendant”), having been sued in
what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, lodged a
Notice of Removal of that action in this Court (“Notice”) and also presented a request
to proceed in forma pauperis. [Dkt. Nos. 1, 3.] The Court has denied the latter
application under separate cover because the action was improperly removed. To
prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order
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); 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. Pursuant to the “well-pleaded complaint

10

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

11

the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.

12

Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer alleges a cause of action arising under the

13

laws of the State of California. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 9-12.] In the Notice, Defendant

14

claims that he withheld rent in response to Plaintiff’s alleged violations of the Fair

15

Housing Act (“FHA”), 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. (Notice at 2-3.) However, the FHA

16

does not appear on the face of Plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint, and thus may not

17

serve as a basis for federal-question jurisdiction. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 9-12]; see also

18

Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (holding

19

that federal-question jurisdiction “cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated

20

defense” nor on “an actual or anticipated 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 North

3

Berkeley Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92832, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant

4

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

5

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

6
7
8
9

DATED: March 2, 2017

_______________
HON. DAVID O. CARTER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3