Strategic Acquisitions, Inc. v. Heredia, et al.

Filing 3

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 12/3/2015. This case is REMANDED to Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. In light of this ruling, the Court need not decide defendant Lori Heredia's 2 Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (Marciel, M)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

Strategic Acquisitions, Inc.,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

No. 2:15-cv-02346-GEB-EFB

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

v.
Gilbert J. Heredia; Lori E.
Heredia; all occupants in
possession;

12

Defendants.

13
On

14

November

12,

2015,

Defendants

filed

a

Notice

of

15

Removal removing this unlawful detainer action from the Superior

16

Court of California for the County of Alameda. (Notice of Removal

17

(“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court sua

18

sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California for

19

the County of Alameda for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“There

20

is

presumption

establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v.

23

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011)

24

(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).

25

“If

26

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

27

*

28

before

final

party

judgment

has

it

the

removal

22

time

removing

against

jurisdiction,’

any

the

‘strong

21

at

and

a

appears

burden

that

of

the

The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a
Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this
case.

1

1

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must -

2

remand

3

subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985

4

MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

5

(citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co.,

6

346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

an

action

sua

sponte

if

it

determines

that

it

lacks

7

Defendants assert in the Notice of Removal (“NOR”) that

8

both federal question and diversity removal jurisdiction exist.

9

(NOR 1:21-29.)

10

Defendants

have

not

shown

the

existence

of

federal

11

question jurisdiction. Review of the Complaint reveals Plaintiff

12

alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer under California

13

law, and “[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable

14

if the complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim.”

15

Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). Under

16

the “well-pleaded complaint rule[,] . . . ‘a case may not be

17

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . .

18

even

19

complaint . . . .’”

20

Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014)

21

(quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)).

22

Similarly, “federal [question] jurisdiction [cannot] rest upon an

23

actual or anticipated counterclaim.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

24

U.S. 49, 50 (2009).

if

the

defense

is

Retail

anticipated
Prop.

Trust

in

the

plaintiff’s

v.

United

Bhd.

of

25

Further, Defendants have not shown the existence of

26

diversity jurisdiction. Each Defendant is not alleged to have

27

diverse citizenship from Plaintiff, and the Complaint does not

28

allege that the matter in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
2

1

' 1332(a). The Complaint was filed as a limited civil action

2

where the “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.” (See Compl.,

3

Ex. A to NOR, ECF 1 at ECF p. 10.)

4

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the

5

Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. In light

6

of

7

Heredia’s application to proceed in forma pauperis.

8

Dated:

this

ruling,

the

Court

need

December 3, 2015

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

not

decide

Defendant

Lori