Kensington Capitals, LLC v. Kelly Yi et al
Filing
8
ORDER by Judge Josephine L. Staton remanding case to Superior Court of California, County of Orange, Case number 30-02017-00915969-CL-UD-NJC. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-866-JLS-JDEx
Title:
Kensington Capitals, LLC v. Kelly Yi
Date: May 23, 2017
Present: HONORABLE JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Terry Guerrero
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
Not Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
Not Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO ORANGE
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, CASE NO. 30-2017-00915969CL-UD-NJC
Plaintiff Kensington Capitals, LLC filed this unlawful detainer action against
Defendant Kelly Yi on April 21, 2017 in Orange County Superior Court. (Notice of
Removal, Ex. A, “Complaint,” Doc. 1.) Yi removed the case to this Court on the basis of
federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (Notice of Removal at 2, Doc.
1.) Where a federal district court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it must remand the
case, and has the discretion to do so sua sponte. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n,
Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to
Orange County Superior Court.
When reviewing a notice of removal, “it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside
the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary
rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039,
1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th
Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Courts “strictly construe the removal
statute against removal jurisdiction,” and thus “the defendant always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). Moreover, removal is proper only in “state-court actions that originally could
have been filed in federal court . . . .” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
(1987). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
1
____________________________________________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. 8:17-cv-866-JLS-JDEx
Title:
Kensington Capitals, LLC v. Kelly Yi
Date: May 23, 2017
Here, Yi identifies various federal statutes that purport to vest the Court with
subject matter jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 2.) These statutes, however, are
irrelevant to determining subject matter jurisdiction in this case because Kensington
Capitals’ complaint states only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer and
implicates none of the federal statutes referenced by Yi. See Caterpillar, Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“The presence or absence of federal-question
jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s
properly pleaded complaint.”). At best, Yi relies upon a federal defense to a state-law
claim. The assertion of a federal defense to a state-law claim does not convert the statelaw claim into one “arising under” federal law for purposes of federal question
jurisdiction. See Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir.
2009). Therefore, the Court has no federal question jurisdiction.
Nor does the present action meet the requirements of diversity jurisdiction. The
Complaint expressly states that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. (See
Compl.) Therefore the amount in controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction is not
met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Moreover, in the absence of a federal question, where the
Court’s jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship, a removing defendant may
not be a citizen of the forum state. Here, Yi’s address shows that she is a California
citizen and is therefore clearly a forum defendant who lacks the ability to remove a statecourt action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction over this case, and REMANDS it to Orange County Superior Court, Case
Number 30-2017-00915969-CL-UD-NJC.
Initials of Preparer: tg
______________________________________________________________________________
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
2
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?