Cabrera v. Ramirez

Filing 4

ORDER DIRECTING the Clerk to Assign a United States District Judge to the Action; FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS Remanding the Matter to Kern County Superior Court for Lack of Jurisdiction, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 1/20/15: 14-Day Deadline. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARIO ERNESTO CABRERA,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14

v.
ELISEO RAMIREZ,
Defendants.

15
16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00067 - --- - JLT
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ASSIGN A
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE TO THE
ACTION
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REMANDING THE MATTER TO KERN COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT FOR LACK OF
JURISDICTION

17
18

Mario Ernesto Cabrera seeks the removal of the unlawful detainer action initiated by Eliseo

19

Ramirez in Kern County Superior Court, Case No. S-1500-CL-284158. (Doc. 1.) Although Cabrera

20

identifies himself as the plaintiff in the removing documents, he is the defendant named in the

21

complaint filed in Case No. S-1500-CL-284158.1 Because an action for unlawful detainer arises under

22

California law, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. Accordingly, the Court

23

recommends the action be REMANDED to Kern County Superior Court.

24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources
whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333
(9th Cir. 1993). The accuracy of the Court’s records cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of
court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp.,
80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887
F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). Therefore,
judicial notice is taken of the docket and complaint filed in Case No. S-1500-CL-284158.

1

1

I.

Removal Jurisdiction

2

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court

3

where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286,

4

392 (1987). Specifically,
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.

5
6
7
8

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the

9

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331.

10

A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of

11

receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed,

12

and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles,

13

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its

14

propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d

15

676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 (“the

16

burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). If there is any doubt

17

as to the right of removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485.

18

The district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action

19

sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell &

20

Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v.

21

Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural

22

and jurisdictional defects and holding that a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). Thus,

23

the Sixth Circuit explained that a court “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it

24

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of

25

Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995).

26

II.

Discussion and Analysis

27

The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint

28

rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the
2

1

face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. Therefore, the

2

complaint must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the

3

plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

4

Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d

5

1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S.

6

1, 27-28 (1983)).
Significantly, the only cause of action identified by Eliseo Ramirez in his complaint is

7
8

unlawful detainer. (See Doc. 1 at 12-16.) An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal

9

law, but arises instead under state law. See Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, at *6

10

(E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court”);

11

Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1,

12

2011) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a

13

matter of state law”). Thus, Plaintiff Eliseo Ramirez has not raised a claim that invokes federal subject

14

matter jurisdiction.

15

III.

Conclusion
Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise

16
17

jurisdiction over this action and the matter must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. §

18

1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

19

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”).
Good cause appearing, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to assign a United States District

20
21

Judge to this action

22

IV.

Findings and Recommendations

23

Based upon the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENED:

24

1.

The matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of Kern County; and

25

2.

The Clerk of Court be DIRECTED to close this matter.

26

These Findings and Recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge

27

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Rule 304 of the Local

28

Rules of Practice for the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. Within 14 days
3

1

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections

2

with the Court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and

3

Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may

4

waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

5
6
7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 20, 2015

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4