Michon v. Marshall et al

Filing 6

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 08/22/16 ORDERING that this matter is REMANDED to Placer County Superior Court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PETER MICHON,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-01954-KJM-DB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

BRUCE MARSHALL, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
On August 18, 2016, pro se defendants Bruce Marshall, April Stewart and Nick
18
Fordham removed this unlawful detainer action from Placer County Superior Court, and moved
19
to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4. As explained below, the court REMANDS the
20
case to the Placer County Superior Court and DENIES the motions to proceed in forma pauperis.
21
When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original
22
jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28
23
U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question
24
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A
25
federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not established federal
26
jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing
27
Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time before final
28
1

1

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be

2

remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

3

Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to the Placer County Superior

4

Court. The form complaint filed in the state court is for unlawful detainer only. ECF No. 1.

5

Defendants ground the removal on the court’s federal question jurisdiction, arguing that “[f]ederal

6

question exists because [d]efendant’s [sic] Answer, a pleading[,] depend [sic] on the

7

determination of [d]efendant’s [sic] rights and [p]laintiff’s duties under federal law.” Id. at 2.

8

However, plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading

9

solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005).

10

Defendants have not shown any federal question arises from plaintiff’s complaint. Defendants’

11

assertion is best characterized as a defense or a potential counterclaim; neither of which can be

12

considered in evaluating whether federal question jurisdiction exists. Vaden v. Discover Bank,

13

556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated

14

counterclaim”); Valles, 410 F.3d at 1075 (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not

15

confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is

16

anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”); Metro Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co.,145

17

F.3d 320, 326–27 (5th Cir. 1998); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir.

18

1985).

19

Accordingly, because plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint does not provide a

20

basis for federal question jurisdiction, and defendants’ answer cannot provide the basis for

21

removal jurisdiction here, this court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction over plaintiff’s

22

single state-law claim for unlawful detainer. This case is REMANDED to Placer County

23

Superior Court.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 22, 2016

26
27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2