MRO Investments, Inc. v. Poore et al

Filing 3

ORDER REMANDING Unlawful Detainer Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/23/2012. CASE REMANDED to Fresno County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
MRO INVESTMENTS, INC.,

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01725-LJO-SMS

7
Plaintiff,
8

ORDER REMANDING UNLAWFUL
DETAINER ACTION FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

v.
9
10

MICHAEL F. POORE, MICHELLE L.
POORE, AND DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

11

Defendants.

(Doc. 1)
/

12
Defendants Michael F. Poore and Michelle L. Poore, proceeding pro se, filed papers

13
14

attempting to remove to this Court an unlawful detainer action brought against them in Fresno

15

County Superior Court. Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the unlawful

16

detainer action, it will remand it, on the Court’s own motion, to the Fresno County Superior

17

Court.

18

Federal law empowers a defendant to remove an action to federal court if the district

19

court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Only state court actions that originally

20

could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”

21

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked

22

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question) or 28 U.S.C. 1332(a) (diversity). In their removal

23

motion, Defendants allege both diversity and federal question jurisdiction. Neither type of

24

subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case.

25

Diversity Jurisdiction. To establish diversity jurisdiction, the sum or value of the matter

26

in controversy must exceed $75,000, and the parties must be citizens of different states. 28

27

U.S.C. § 1332(a). Because Plaintiff is a California corporation and Defendants are California

28

residents, the parties’ citizenship is not diverse, and the federal court lacks diversity jurisdiction.
1

1

Federal question jurisdiction. District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil

2

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

3

This means that a complaint must establish “either (1) that federal law creates the cause of action

4

or (2) that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question

5

of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage & Easement

6

in the Cloverly Subterranean, Geological Formation, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008).

7

Defendants’ removal motion asserts that federal question jurisdiction exists but provides no

8

factual support for their legal conclusion.
An unlawful detainer, or eviction, action is a matter of state law. Round Valley Indian

9
10

Housing Authority v. Hunter, 907 F.Supp. 1343, 1348 (N.D.Cal. 1995). See also Powers v.

11

United States Postal Service, 671 F.2d 1041, 1045 (7th Cir. 1982) (“Federal common law of

12

landlord and tenant does not exist”). In the absence of related federal claims, a district court

13

properly remanded an unlawful detainer action that the defendant had attempted to remove to

14

federal court. McGee v. Hildebrand, 19 Fed.Appx. 582, 583 (9th Cir. 2001).

15

Conclusion and order. A district court may remand an action to state court for lack of

16

subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Lacking subject matter jurisdiction over this

17

action, this Court must dismiss it and remand it to the Fresno County Superior Court.

18

Accordingly, this Court REMANDS this action to the Fresno County Superior Court.

19

The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the Fresno County Superior Court

20

and to serve the parties in the customary manner.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
66h44d

October 23, 2012

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2