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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?