Yeverino v. Munoz

Filing 8

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 8/1/2014 REMANDING CASE to Fresno County Superior Court. Certified Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

HUMBERTO YEVERINO,

No. 1:14-cv-1167 --- GSA

11
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
ESTEBAN MUNOZ,

15

(Doc. 1)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

INTRODUCTION
Pro se Defendant, Esteban Munoz ("Defendant”), filed a Notice of Removal of an unlawful
detainer action brought against him in the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. 1). Defendant’s

20
21
22

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

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

27

statute provides:

28
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
Here, the Notice of Removal and accompanying documents indicate that Defendant was

16
17
18
19
20

served with the unlawful detainer action on June 23, 2014. (Doc. 1, pgs. 14 and 23). However,
Defendant did not remove this action to this Court until July 28, 2014, which is 35 days after he
received a copy of the pleading. Therefore, the removal is untimely.

Moreover, generally, subject matter jurisdiction can be established in three ways: 1) a

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 2008 (1989). As discussed below,
25
26

Defendant has failed to establish that federal jurisdiction is proper. The United States is not a

27

party to this action. Similarly, Defendant cannot establish jurisdiction is proper because no federal

28

question has been presented and diversity jurisdiction does not exist.
2

1
2
3
4
5

Federal Question Jurisdiction
District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Determination 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 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

6
Catepillar, 482 U.S. at 392. To invoke federal question jurisdiction, a complaint must establish

7
8
9
10
11

“either that (1) federal law creates the cause of action or that, (2) plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily
depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co.
v. An Exclusive Gas Storage & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008).
Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, courts look to what “necessarily appears in the

12

plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything in anticipation of

13

avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” California v. United States,

14

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

15
16

defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that
the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

17
18
19

(1987); Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v.
Discover Bank, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 1278 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal question

20

lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under

21

federal law.”).

22

Here, the crux of Defendant’s claims is a violation of due process because he alleges the judge

23

in the unlawful detainer proceeding is biased against the parties. However, this allegation does not

24

establish this Court’s jurisdiction in a removal proceeding, as this claim was not pled in the

25
26

underlying complaint Plaintiff filed in state court. In other words, Defendant cannot add new claims
to Plaintiff’s complaint in the underlying state action to establish this establish this Court’s

27
jurisdiction in a removal proceeding.

28
3

1

In this case, the record indicates that Eseban Munoz is a named Defendant in a state court

2

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

3

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

4
5

province of state court”); Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854,
at * 2 (C.D. Cal. 2011) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action

6
that is purely a matter of state law”). Therefore, this unlawful detainer action fails to invoke federal

7
8

question jurisdiction and is not properly before this Court.
Diversity Jurisdiction

9

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

10
11

part:

12

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

13

controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is between –

14
15

(1) citizens of different States . . .
Here, the complaint indicates that all parties are citizens of California rather than of different

16
states. Accordingly, diversity jurisdiction does not exist.

17
CONCLUSION AND ORDER

18
19
20

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ papers fail to invoke this Court’s subject matter
jurisdiction. Accordingly, this case is REMANDED forthwith to the Fresno County Superior Court.

21
22
23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 1, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25
26
27
28
4