Patel v. White

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 8/12/2016 ORDERING that this action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendants' 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD04884. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No.: 2:16-cv-01896-MCE-KJN-PS

VIMALA PATEL,

ORDER

v.
MARQUESIA WHITE,

15

Defendant.

16
On July 13, 2016, Defendant MARQUESIA WHITE (“Defendant”), proceeding in

17
18

pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action, filed by Plaintiff VIMALA PATEL

19

(“Plaintiff”) from the Sacramento County Superior Court.1 ECF No. 1. While Defendant

20

utilized a template for filing an initial complaint, her papers make it clear that she in fact

21

seeks to transfer a preexisting unlawful detainer proceeding already pending in state

22

court.

23

This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand

24

sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden

25

of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal

26

statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,

27
1

28

Despite Defendant’s 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

846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must

2

be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v.

3

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendants have

4

failed to meet that burden.

5

Defendant’s removal request is premised on the argument that this Court has

6

“federal question” jurisdiction. Defendant makes no effort to identify the basis for

7

claiming such jurisdiction except to attach a demurrer she filed in state court that

8

exclusively references state law. Additionally, the demurrer makes it clear that the only

9

claim pursued by Plaintiff in the state court proceeding is for unlawful detainer. ECF No.

10

1 at p. 8.

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Here, Plaintiff’s sole claim, by Defendant’s own admission, is for unlawful detainer

21

under state law. Even were Defendant to argue that she has defenses available under

22

federal law, which she has not, that still would be insufficient to justify removal. “A case

23

may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the

24

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

25

defense is the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC

26

v. Dep’t. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th

27

Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction.

28

///
2

1

Accordingly:

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

number (No. 16UD04884) in the proof of service.

6
7

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

8

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

9

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

10
11
12

following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD04884.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2016

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