Ryan Family Trust v. Chairez

Filing 4

ORDER REMANDING CASE to San Joaquin County Superior Court signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 4/22/14. 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is GRANTED. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Manzer, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RYAN FAMILY TRUST,

12

2:14-cv-958 JAM-KJN PS

Plaintiff,

13
14

No.

v.

ORDER

CARMEN CHAIREZ,

15

Defendant.

16
17

This is an unlawful detainer action that was removed to this

18

Court on April 18, 2014, by Defendant Carmen Chairez, proceeding

19

without counsel, from the San Joaquin County Superior Court.

20

(ECF No. 1.)

21

pauperis. 1

Defendant also filed a request to proceed in forma

(ECF No. 2.)

22
23

I.

24
25

OPINION

Defendant’s application in support of her request to proceed
in forma pauperis makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. §

26
27
28

1

This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). No hearing was
scheduled.
1

1

1915(a)(1).

2

proceed in forma pauperis.

3

Accordingly, the Court grants Defendant’s request to

The determination that a party may proceed in forma pauperis

4

does not complete the required inquiry.

5

independent duty to assess whether federal subject matter

6

jurisdiction exists, whether or not the parties raise the issue.

7

See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360

8

F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (stating that “the district court

9

had a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the

A federal court has an

10

removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue

11

or not”); accord Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 342

12

(9th Cir. 1996).

13

waived by the parties, a district court must remand a case if it

14

lacks jurisdiction over the matter.

15

Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192

16

(9th Cir. 2003) (citing Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n of

17

Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998)); see

18

also 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment

19

it appears that the district court lacks subject matter

20

jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded”).

21

outlined below, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter

22

jurisdiction over the action and thus remands the case to state

23

court.

Because subject matter jurisdiction may not be

Kelton Arms Condominium

For the reasons

24

In relevant part, the federal removal statute provides:

25

(a) Except as 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 the
defendants, to the district court of the
United States for the district and division
2

26
27
28

1

embracing the place where such action is
pending.

2
3

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).

“The defendant bears the burden of

4

establishing that removal is proper.”

5

Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir.

6

2009).

7

removal jurisdiction,” id., and removal jurisdiction “must be

8

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

9

first instance,” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of

Provincial Gov’t of

“The removal statute is strictly construed against

10

Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation and

11

quotation marks omitted).

12

A federal district court generally has original jurisdiction

13

over a civil action when: (1) a federal question is presented in

14

an action “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of

15

the United States” or (2) there is complete diversity of

16

citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.

17

28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a).

18

See

In regard to federal question jurisdiction, federal courts

19

have “jurisdiction to hear, originally or by removal from a state

20

court, only those cases in which a well-pleaded complaint

21

establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action,

22

or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on

23

resolution of a substantial question of federal law.”

24

Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28

25

(1983); see also Republican Party of Guam v. Gutierrez, 277 F.3d

26

1086, 1088-89 (9th Cir. 2002).

27

federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded

28

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists

Franchise

“[T]he presence or absence of

3

1

only when a federal question is presented on the face of the

2

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

3

F.3d at 1091 (citation and quotation marks omitted).

4

determining the existence of removal jurisdiction, based upon a

5

federal question, the court must look to the complaint as of the

6

time the removal petition was filed.”

7

Co., 300 F.3d 1112, 1117 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation and quotation

8

marks omitted).

Mere reference to federal law is insufficient to

9

permit removal.

See Smith v. Indus. Valley Title Ins. Co., 957

Placer Dome, Inc., 582
“In

Abada v. Charles Schwab &

10

F.2d 90, 93 (3d Cir. 1992) (“[T]he mere presence of a federal

11

issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer

12

federal question jurisdiction”).

13

counterclaims cannot provide a sufficient basis to remove an

14

action to federal court.

15

49, 60 (2009); Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994);

16

Takeda v. Northwestern Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 821-22

17

(9th Cir. 1985).

18

Also, defenses and

See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.

Here, removal cannot be based on federal question

19

jurisdiction.

20

that Plaintiff brings claims under various federal statutes,

21

including the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Real Estate

22

Settlement Procedures Act, and the Truth in Lending Act, the

23

state court papers accompanying the notice of removal indicate

24

that the state court action is nothing more than a simple

25

unlawful detainer action.

26

no jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions, which are brought

27

pursuant to state law and fall strictly within the province of

28

the state court.

Although Defendant’s notice of removal suggests

(ECF No. 1 at 6-13.)

4

This Court has

1

Any defenses or counterclaims based on federal law must

2

generally be raised in the state court action and do not provide

3

a basis for removal.

4

on the basis of a federal defense, . . . even if the defense is

5

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both

6

parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at

7

issue in the case.”

8

Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108,

9

1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see

“A case may not be removed to federal court

ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of

10

also Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir.

11

2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not

12

confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is

13

that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s

14

complaint.”)

15

Furthermore, this action cannot be removed on grounds of

16

diversity jurisdiction.

17

not exceed $75,000, because Plaintiff’s complaint specifically

18

does not seek more than $10,000.

19

even if the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, Defendant is

20

a citizen of California, and therefore cannot remove the action

21

from a California state court on the basis of diversity

22

jurisdiction.

23

which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a

24

claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws

25

of the United States shall be removable without regard to the

26

citizenship or residence of the parties.

27

shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest

28

properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the

First, the amount in controversy does

(ECF No. 1 at 10.)

Second,

See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) (“Any civil action of

5

Any other such action

1
2

State in which such action is brought”) (emphasis added).
For the reasons set forth above, the Court finds that it

3

lacks federal subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s

4

unlawful detainer action brought pursuant to California law.

5

such, the case must be remanded to state court.

6

As

Finally, the Court notes that this is now the second time

7

that Defendant has improperly removed Plaintiff’s unlawful

8

detainer action to federal court.

9

Chairez, 2:14-cv-97-JAM-AC, ECF No. 6 (April 16, 2014 order

See Ryan Family Trust v.

10

remanding action to state court based on lack of subject matter

11

jurisdiction).

12

filed the present notice of removal.

13

that “[a]n order remanding the case may require payment of just

14

costs and any actual expenses, including attorney fees, incurred

15

as a result of the removal.”

16

Court, in light of Defendant’s pro se status, presently declines

17

to order the payment of costs and expenses, Defendant is

18

cautioned that any future improper removals may result in an

19

award of costs and expenses to Plaintiff, and/or the imposition

20

of any other appropriate sanctions.

Mere days later, on April 18, 2014, Defendant
Defendant is put on notice

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Although the

21
22

II.

ORDER

23

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

24

1.

Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 2) is GRANTED.

2.

The action is REMANDED to the San Joaquin County
Superior Court.

25
26
27
28

6

1

3.

The Clerk of Court shall serve a certified copy of this
order on the Clerk of the San Joaquin County Superior
Court, and reference the state case number (39-201300303361-CL-UD-MAN) in the proof of service.

4.

The Clerk of Court shall vacate any dates and close
this case.

2
3
4
5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

April 22, 2014

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
7