Gill v. Archambault et al

Filing 11

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION to Stanislaus County Superior Court and DENYING AS MOOT 3 , 7 Defendants' Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 6/26/2015. CASE CLOSED. Copy of remand order mailed to Stanislaus County Superior Court. (Jessen, A)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

1:15-cv-938-LJO-SKO

GURMUKH GILL,

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING
ACTION TO STANISLAUS COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS
MOOT (Docs. 3, 7)

Plaintiff,
v.
KEN ARCHAMBAULT AND MARCY
ARCHAMBAULT,
Defendants.

11
12

On June 22, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an

13 action from the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus. Doc. 1. For the following reasons, the Court
14 sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus.
15

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

16 court has original jurisdiction. Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)
17 (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final
18 judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.
19 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, a defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file a
20 notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The
21 defendant seeking removal of an action to federal court has the burden of establishing federal
22 jurisdiction in the case. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).
23

Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer action based on both federal question

24 subject matter jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship. Doc. 1. However, Defendant cannot establish
25 jurisdiction that is proper. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general
1

1

subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United

2

States Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve diversity of citizenship or a federal

3

question, or cases in which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

4

375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without

5

jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never

6

waived and may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc.,

7

93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its

8

jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney,

9

841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988).

10

Furthermore, the law is clear in the Ninth Circuit that the removal statute should be strictly

11 construed in favor of remand and against removal. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689,
12 698 (9th Cir. 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant
13 always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach &
14 Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th
15 Cir. 1988). Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the
16 first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
17

In this case, Defendant is unable to establish subject matter jurisdiction before this Court because

18 the complaint filed in the state court apparently contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer
19 based on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within
20 the province of state court. Defendant’s attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding
21 claims or defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50
22 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v.
23 Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does
24 not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is
25 anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”).
2

In determining the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-

1
2

pleaded complaint rule” applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal

3

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v.

4

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her

5

complaint’ and can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d

6

994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. First

7

Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law

8

only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law”).

9

Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The face of a properly-pled state law

10 unlawful detainer action does not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint avoids
11 federal question jurisdiction.
12

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus

13 for all future proceedings. Defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 3, 7) are DENIED
14 as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to take necessary action to remand this case to the Stanislaus
15 County Superior Court and also is directed to CLOSE this case.
16
17 Dated:

June 26, 2015

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

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
3