FPA4 Arbor Ridge LLC v. Montgomery

Filing 3

ORDER Sua Sponte Remanding Case to Fresno County Superior Court and Denying Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis as Moot signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 12/20/2017. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED.(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

FPA4 ARBOR RIDGE LLC, doing
business as The Enclave
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 1:17-cv-01689-DAD-BAM

v.
MYA MONTGOMERY,
Defendant.

16

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

17

This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by plaintiff FPA 4

18

Arbor Ridge LLC against defendant Mya Montgomery. On December 15, 2017, defendant Mya

19

Montgomery removed this case to this federal court from the Fresno County Superior Court.

20

(Doc. No. 1.) Defendant asserts that the basis for removal is that defendant’s answer “depend[s]

21

on a determination of Defendant’s right and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at 2.)

22

Defendant filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the same date, December 15, 2017.

23

(Doc. No. 2.)

24

A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

§ 1447(c).

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987);
2

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

federal law.”).

5

Here, defendants have not shown that removal of this action to this federal court is

6

appropriate. Plaintiff’s complaint is a straight-forward unlawful detainer action that is based

7

entirely on state law. As stated above, defendant suggests her contemplated defense relies on

8

unspecified federal law. Even assuming defendant can assert a federal defense, they cannot use

9

such a defense as the basis for removal because the defensive invocation of federal law cannot

10

form the basis of this court’s jurisdiction. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 70; Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at

11

392; Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183; California, 215 F.3d at 1014.

12

Because there is no federal question appearing in plaintiff’s complaint, defendants have

13

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

14

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

15

Bruns, 122 F.3d at 1257.

16

Accordingly,

17

1. This action is remanded forthwith to the Fresno County Superior Court, pursuant to 28

18
19

U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;
2. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as having

20
21
22
23

been rendered moot by this order; and
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 20, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3