Regency Townhouses v. Rodriguez
Filing
3
SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 1/11/2017 REMANDING this matter to Superior Court of California, County of Solano for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
REGENCY TOWNHOUSES,
8
Plaintiff,
9
10
No. 2:17-cv-00033-GEB-EFB
SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*
v.
MIRIAM RODRIGUEZ,
11
Defendant.
12
13
On January 6, 2017, Defendant Miriam Rodriguez filed a
14
Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer case from the
15
Superior Court of California for the County of Solano. (Notice of
16
Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court
17
sua sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California
18
for the County of Solano for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“There
19
is
presumption
establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v.
22
AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011)
23
(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).
24
“If
25
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
26
be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must -
27
*
28
before
final
party
judgment
has
it
the
removal
21
time
removing
against
jurisdiction,’
any
the
‘strong
20
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
remand
2
subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985
3
MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)
4
(citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co.,
5
346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).
an
6
action
sua
Defendant
this
asserts
in
it
determines
the
NOR
of
the
that
it
this
8
case
unlawful
Complaint
“[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable if the
12
complaint
13
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). “The
14
presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed
15
by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal
16
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on
17
the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Retail
18
Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768
19
F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)
20
(quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)).
21
“Moreover, ‘it is well established that [the] plaintiff is the
22
master
23
jurisdiction.’”
24
2015
25
Loowdermilk v. U.S. First Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th
26
Cir.
27
overruled on other grounds, Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs.
28
LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2013)).
of
[its]
complaint
Goraya
7281611,
2007)
affirmatively
at
(remanding
v.
*2
and
under
allege
can
Martinez,
(E.D.
unlawful
2
California
Plaintiff
11
not
claim
reveals
federal
alleges
does
detainer
the
of
is
10
WL
an
of
existence
lacks
questions, granting this court jurisdiction. (NOR at 2.)
review
because
that
removable
However,
court
if
7
9
to
sponte
Cal.
a
plead
No.
Nov.
detainer
federal
to
avoid
law,
and
claim.”
federal
2:15-cv-2375-JAM-KJN,
17,
2015)
action
sua
(quoting
sponte),
1
For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the
2
Superior Court of California for the County of Solano.
3
Dated:
January 11, 2017
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?