Blank v. Mullet, et al.

Filing 6

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING MATTER to the Fresno County Superior Court and ORDER DENYING AS MOOT 3 , 4 Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2016. CASE CLOSED. Ceritifed copy of remand order mailed to Fresno County Superior Court. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CURT BLANK,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:16-cv-00302-DAD-BAM
Plaintiff,

v.
DAVID MULLET and JENNY MULLET,
Defendants.

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING
MATTER TO THE FRESNO COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT AND DENYING AS
MOOT MOTIONS TO PROCEED IN FORMA
PAUPERIS
(Doc. Nos. 1, 3–4)

17
18

This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by plaintiff Curt

19

Blank against defendants David Mullet and Jenny Mullet. On March 4, 2016, defendants

20

removed this case from the Fresno County Superior Court. (Doc. No. 1.) Defendants assert that

21

the basis for removal is the presence of a federal question because they filed an answer to

22

plaintiff‟s unlawful detainer complaint, and the answer “depend[s] on the determination of

23

Defendant‟s rights and Plaintiff‟s duties under federal law.” (Id. at 2.) A review of the answer

24

indicates that defendants by way of affirmative defense are contending that plaintiff discriminated

25

against them in violation of federal law. (See id. at 9.) On the same day, defendants each filed

26

motions to proceed in forma pauperis in this court. (Doc. Nos. 3–4.)

27
28

A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action
sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell
1

1

& Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is

2

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka,

3

599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582

4

F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of

5

the federal courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

6

jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582

7

F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely

8

on the plaintiff‟s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl.

9

Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000).

10

“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all

11

ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

12

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected

13

if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 599

14

F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. “If

15

at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

16

case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th

17

Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v.

18

NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997); see also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc.,

19

375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). Where it appears, as it does here, that the district court lacks

20

subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C.

21

§ 1447(c).

22

“The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the „well-pleaded

23

complaint rule,‟ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

24

presented on the face of the plaintiff‟s properly pleaded complaint.” California v. United States,

25

215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 838; Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485.

26

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily appears in the plaintiff‟s

27

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

28

avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” California, 215 F.3d at
2

1

1014. Accordingly, “a case may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the

2

defense is anticipated in the plaintiff‟s complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense

3

is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987);

4

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

5

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal question lurks

6

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

7

federal law.”).

8
9

Here, defendants David Mullet and Jenny Mullet have not shown that removal of this
action to this federal court is appropriate. The complaint filed by plaintiff is a straight-forward

10

unlawful detainer action that is based entirely on state law. As stated above, defendants rely

11

solely on their answer to the complaint in attempting to establish federal jurisdiction. Defendants

12

seek to base removal of this case on what appears to be a type of federal defense. This is

13

improper, since the defensive invocation of federal law cannot form the basis of this court‟s

14

jurisdiction. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 70; Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183;

15

California, 215 F.3d at 1014.
Because there is no federal question appearing in plaintiff‟s complaint, defendants have

16
17

failed to properly invoke this court‟s jurisdiction. Remand to the Fresno County Superior Court

18

is appropriate and mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1107;

19

Bruns, 122 F.3d at 1257.

20

Accordingly,

21

1. This action is REMANDED forthwith to the Fresno County Superior Court, pursuant

22

to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

23

2. Defendants motions motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 3–4) are

24

DENIED as moot; and

25
26
27

3. The court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to close this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 8, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
3