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.)

Download PDF
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?