Shu Hui Yen v. Ryan Christopher Foltz et al
Filing
8
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION by Judge David O. Carter. IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Orange, North Justice Center, 1275 North Berkeley Avenue, Fullerton, CA 92832, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (es)
1
2
3
JS-6
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
SHU HUI YEN,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
RYAN CHRISTOPHER FOLTZ, et al., )
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
Case No. SA CV 17-0987 DOC (JCGx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION
The Court will summarily remand this unlawful detainer action to state court
because Defendants removed it improperly.
21
On June 8, 2017, Ryan Christopher Foltz and Serena E. Ellinghausen
22
(“Defendants”), having been sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer
23
action in California state court, lodged a Notice of Removal of that action in this Court
24
(“Notice”), and Defendants have also presented requests to proceed in forma pauperis
25
(“Requests”). [Dkt. Nos. 1, 3, 4.] The Court has denied Defendants’ Requests under
26
separate cover because the action was improperly removed. To prevent the action
27
from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the
28
action to state court.
1
Simply stated, Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the
1
2
first place, and so removal is improper. Notably, even if complete diversity of
3
citizenship exists, Defendants cannot properly remove the action because Defendants
4
reside in the forum state. (See Notice at 1); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
Nor does Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer proceeding raise any federal legal
5
6
question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441. Pursuant to the “well-pleaded complaint
7
rule,” federal-question jurisdiction exists “only when a federal question is presented on
8
the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,
9
482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, Plaintiff’s underlying complaint asserts a cause of
10
action for unlawful detainer. [See Dkt. No. 1 at 5-8.] “Unlawful detainer is an
11
exclusively state law claim that does not require the resolution of any substantial
12
question of federal law.” Martingale Invs., LLC v. Frausto, 2013 WL 5676237, at *2
13
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2013). In the Notice, Defendants assert, in conclusory fashion, that
14
a “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Demurrer . . . depend[s] on the
15
determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Notice
16
at 2.) However, neither a federal-law counterclaim nor a federal-law defense may
17
serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556
18
U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (holding that federal-question jurisdiction “cannot be predicated on
19
an actual or anticipated defense” nor on “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 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:
June 13, 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
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?