MTGLQ Investors, L.P. v. Campbell, et al.

Filing 4

SUA SPONTE REMEND ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 6/2/2016 REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento; In removing this case, Defendant filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis 2 ; the Court has reviewed the motions and finds that Defendant meets the requirements of in forma pauperis status and thus GRANTS Defendant's request. [Certified copy of remand order sent to other court]. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MTGLQ INVESTORS, L.P.,

12
13
14
15

Case No. 2:16-cv-01167-TLN-GGH

Plaintiff,
SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

v.
RICHARD CAMPBELL, STEPHANIE
CAMPBELL, STEPHEN HARMON AND
DOES 1 THROUGH 5,

16

Defendants.

17
18
This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Stephanie Campbell’s
19
20

(“Defendant”) Notice of Removal and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.)
For the reasons set forth below, Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED,

21
and the Court hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California, County of
22
Sacramento, due to lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
23
I.
24

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 18, 2015, Plaintiff MTGLQ Investors, L.P. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful

25
detainer action in the Sacramento County Superior Court of California. (Not. of Removal, ECF
26
No. 1-1 at 1.) On May 31, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in the United States
27
District Court, Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant asserts that removal is
28
1

1

proper because “the complaint presents federal questions.” (ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶ 4.) For the reasons

2

stated below, this Court finds that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist and thus this case

3

must be remanded.

4

II.

5

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the

6

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal is

7

proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been

8

filed in federal court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

STANDARD OF LAW

9

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the

10

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

11

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time

12

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the

13

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer

14

v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544

15

U.S. 974 (2005).

16

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

17

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

18

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386.

19

Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a

20

federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

21

U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009).

22

III.

ANALYSIS

23

Defendant removed this case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

24

Section 1441(a) states: “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil

25

action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original

26

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the

27

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”

28

Thus, for jurisdiction to exist under § 1441(a), a federal question must be presented on the face of
2

1

the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. Here, Defendant is

2

claiming that her Answer implicates federal questions. This cannot confer original jurisdiction.

3

See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (holding that removal cannot be based on a

4

defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a federal question).

5

Thus, Defendant has failed to establish her burden of showing that jurisdiction before this

6

Court is proper. Therefore, it is appropriate to remand this case, sua sponte, for lack of federal

7

jurisdiction. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th

8

Cir. 2004) (“the district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the

9

removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

10

IV.

CONCLUSION

11

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of

12

California, County of Sacramento. In removing this case, Defendant filed a motion to proceed in

13

forma pauperis. (See ECF No. 2.) The Court has reviewed the motions and finds that Defendant

14

meets the requirements of in forma pauperis status and thus grants Defendant’s request.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 2, 2016

17
18

Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3