Michael Day et al v. Christopher J. Hamilton et al

Filing 7

ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02017-00911223-CL-UD-NJC. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)

1
2

JS-6

3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

MICHAEL DAY, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
CHRISTOPHER J. HAMILTON, and )
DOES 1 TO 10,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)

Case No. SA CV 17-0749 JLS (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 April 26, 2017, Christopher J. Hamilton (“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, 2.] 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, Plaintiffs 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 Plaintiffs’ 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

Here, Plaintiffs’ underlying complaint asserts a cause of action for unlawful detainer.

13

[See Dkt. No. 1 at 7-9.] “Unlawful detainer is an exclusively state law claim that does

14

not require the resolution of any substantial question of federal law.” Martingale

15

Investments, LLC v. John Frausto, 2013 WL 5676237, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013).

16

In the Notice, Defendant contends that his answer raises a federal question as to

17

whether Plaintiffs complied with the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C.

18

§ 5220. (See Notice at 2-3.) However, the referenced federal statute does not appear

19

on the face of Plaintiffs’ well-pleaded complaint, and thus may not serve as a basis for

20

federal-question jurisdiction. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 7-9]; see also Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at

21

392; Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (holding that federal-question

22

jurisdiction “cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense” nor on “an

23

actual or anticipated counterclaim”).

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: April 28, 2017

_______________
HON. JOSEPHINE L. STATON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

3