Renaissance 300 Apartments, LLC v. Taylor et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 07/12/16 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED back to Sacramento County Superior Court (16UD03176); defendants' 2 3 Motions to Proceed IFP are DENIED as moot; Clerk is to NOT open another case removing 16UD03176. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THE RENAISSANCE 300
APARTMENTS, LLC,
Plaintiff,

13
14
15

Case No.: 2:16-cv—01566-MCE-KJN-PS

ORDER

v.
MARY TAYLOR, BRUCE E. TAYLOR,
JR., DOES 1 to 10, inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17
18

On July 8, 2016, Defendants MARY TAYLOR AND BRUCE E. TAYLOR, JR

19

(“Defendants”), proceeding in pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer

20

action filed by Plaintiff THE RENAISSANCE 300 APARTMENTS, LLC (“Plaintiff”) from

21

the Sacramento County Superior Court.1 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent

22

duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter

23

jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is

24

on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against

25

removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)

26

(internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as

27
1

28

Despite Defendants’ pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to
a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21).

1

1

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th

2

Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendants have failed to meet that burden.

3

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal

4

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a). However, a review of

5

the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, it alleges

6

only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-8.

7

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

8

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

9

federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

10

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the

11

complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2]

12

the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of

13

federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage

14

Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd.

15

v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).

16

Here, Plaintiff’s sole claim is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most,

17

Defendants argues that they have a defense under federal law. “A case may not be

18

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is

19

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is

20

the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of

21

Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000)

22

(citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28

23

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a).

24

Accordingly:

25

1. The action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

26

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the

27

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state case

28

number (No. 16UD03176) in the proof of service.
2

1
2

3. Defendants’ Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2 and 3) are
DENIED as moot.

3

4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

4

5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the

5
6
7

following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD03176.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 12, 2016

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3