Flores et al v. Neda

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING ACTION, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 4/2/2014. Certified Copy of this remand order sent to Fresno County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10
11

SUSAN FLORES AND HEIDI
BRESHEARS,

12
13

Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION

14
15

No. 1:14-cv-450 LJO-GSA

(Doc. 1)
DORINA DJURDJEV NEDA,
Defendant.

16
17
18

INTRODUCTION

19

Pro se Defendant Dorina Djurdev Neda ("Defendants”) filed a Notice of Removal of an

20

unlawful detainer action brought against her in Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 1). Defendant’s

21

papers fail to invoke this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the case will be remanded

22

to the Fresno County Superior Court.

23

DISCUSSION

24

Removal

25
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) empowers a defendant to remove an action to federal court if the district

26
27
28

court has original jurisdiction. Catepillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 392 (1987). The removal
statute provides:

1

1
2
3

Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil
action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for
the district and division embracing the place where such action is
pending.

4
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

5
6
7

A removing party must file a notice of removal of a civil action within 30 days of receipt of a
copy of the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). Removal statutes are strictly construed with doubts

8

resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

9

Cir. 1992). The removing party bears the burden to prove propriety of removal. Abrego v. Dow

10

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 683-685 (9th Cir. 2006); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.

11

1996); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the burden

12

of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). A district court may

13
14

remand an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or a defect in the removal
procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

15
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction can be established in three ways: 1) a federal
16
17

question is presented, 2) diversity of citizenship is established (the matter in controversy exceeds

18

$75,000 and is between citizens of different states), or 3) the United States is a party. 28 U.S.C.

19

§§ 1331 and 1332; See also, Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v.

20

United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989). As discussed below, Defendant has

21
22

failed to establish that federal jurisdiction is proper. The United States is not a party to this
action. Similarly, Defendant cannot establish jurisdiction is proper because no federal question

23
24
25
26

has been presented and the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.
Federal Question Jurisdiction
District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

27

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Determination of federal question

28

jurisdiction “is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction

2

1

exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

2

Catepillar, 482 U.S. at 392. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a complaint must establish

3

“either that (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that (2) plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily

4

depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.

5
v. An Exclusive Gas Storage & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008).

6
Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, courts look to what “necessarily appears in the

7
8
9

plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything in anticipation of
avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” California v. United States,

10

215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, “a case may not be removed on the basis of a federal

11

defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that

12

the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

13

(1987); Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v.

14

Discover Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1278 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal question

15
16

lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under
federal law.”). Thus, Plaintiff’s claim that her defense is based on federal law does it establish this

17
18
19

Court’s jurisdiction
To the contrary, the record indicates that Ms. Neda is named as a Defendant in a state court

20

complaint seeking unlawful detainer relief, which arises under state law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez,

21

2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly the

22

province of state court”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854,

23

at * 2 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action

24

that is purely a matter of state law”). An unlawful detainer plaintiff is entitled to judgment after

25
26

establishing that the property at issue sold in compliance with California Civil Code section 2924 and
that the requisite three-day notice to quit was served on defendant as required by California Code of

27
Civil Procedure section 1161. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8018, at

28
3

1

*5 (N.D. Cal. 2011) (citing Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.App.3d 162, 168 (1977). This unlawful

2

detainer action fails to invoke federal question jurisdiction and is not properly before this Court.

3

Diversity Jurisdiction

4

28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) establishes diversity of citizenship jurisdiction and provides in pertinent

5
part:

6
The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in

7
8
9
10

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between –
(1) citizens of different States . . .
To invoke diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value of

11

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In an unlawful detainer action, “the right to possession alone [is]

12

involved – not title to the property.” Litton, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8081, at *6-7. In a federal action,

13

a defendant “bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction, including the

14

jurisdictional amount.” Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir. 1996). Nothing

15

indicates that the unlawful detainer complaint seeks anywhere near $75,000. Additionally, the

16
complaint alleges that the Plaintiffs and Defendant are all citizens of California. Accordingly,

17
18

diversity jurisdiction is not established.
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

19
20

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ papers fail to invoke this Court’s subject matter

21

jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED forthwith to the Fresno County Superior Court.

22

The Clerk of the Court is directed to vacate the initial scheduling conference set for June 3, 2014 at

23

10:00 a.m.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
Dated:
27

April 2, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
4