Liu v. Pangelinan

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 1/23/2017 ORDERING the action 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 Sup erior Court, and reference the state case number (No. 16UD07884) in the proof of service; Defendant's 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED; and The Clerk of the Court is ORDERED not to open another case removing the following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD07884. CASE CLOSED. (Jackson, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

ORDER

v.
PETER GUERRERO PANGELINAN,
JR., DOES 1 TO 100,
Defendants.

16
17

Case No.: 2:17-cv-0128-MCE-DB-PS

GUO HAO LIU,

On January 20, 2017, Defendant PETER GUERRERO PANGELINAN, JR.
(“Defendant”), proceeding in pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer
action filed by Plaintiff GUO HAO LIU (“Plaintiff”) from the Sacramento County Superior
Court.1 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and
may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the
removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche
Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (internal citation omitted). “Federal
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below,
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
2

Defendant has failed to meet that burden.
The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal

3

question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, a review of the Complaint

4

reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead, he alleges only unlawful

5

detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 5-7.

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

Defendant argues that he has a defense under federal law. “A case may not be

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

U.S.C. § 1441.

23

Accordingly:

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

number (No. 16UD07884) in the proof of service.

28

3. Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as
2

1

moot.

2

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

3

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

4
5
6

following unlawful detainer action: No. 16UD07884.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 23, 2017

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3