Prk Newport, LP v. Erin Jones et al
Filing
8
ORDER by Judge John W. Holcomb DENYING 3 REQUEST to Proceed in Forma Pauperis with Declaration in Support (CV-60). This case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of CA for the County of Orange, 30-02024-01440357-CL-UD-CJC. MD JS-6. Case Terminated. (yl)
Plaintiff brought an action for unlawful detainer against Defendant in the Orange County Superior Court.
(ECF No. 1 at 3.) Defendant subsequently filed a Notice of Removal to this Court and a request to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1, 3.)
The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow
Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006). Failure to do so requires that the case be remanded, as
“[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and … the district court must remand if it lacks
jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir.
2003) (citation omitted). A review of the Notice of Removal and state court Complaint demonstrates the
Court lacks jurisdiction over the action for the following reasons.
“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal
court by the defendant. Absent diversity of citizenship, federal-question jurisdiction is required.”
Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (footnotes omitted). Here, federal question
jurisdiction is lacking because the Complaint does not state a claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Because landlord-tenant disputes are matters of state law,
an action for eviction cannot be the basis for federal question jurisdiction.” Round Valley Indian Housing
Authority v. Hunter, 907 F. Supp. 1343, 1348 (N.D. Cal. 1995) (citing Powers v. United States Postal Service,
671 F.2d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 1982) (“[F]ederal common law of landlord and tenant does not exist.”)); see
also Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1385-86 (9th
Cir. 1988) (“Breach of lease is a cause of action under state, not federal, law.”).
To the extent that Defendant may have defenses based on federal law, “the existence of federal jurisdiction
depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO
Env’t Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Env’t Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).
For these reasons, the request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied, and the action is remanded to the
state court.
(attach additional pages if necessary)
CV-73 (07/22)
ORDER ON REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (NON-PRISONER CASE)
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?