Hidden Creek, AKF LLC v. Myrick et al

Filing 4

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 02/06/17 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED to Solano County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Benson, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 HIDDEN CREEK, AKF LLC, 8 Plaintiff, 9 10 11 SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER* v. DANIELLE MYRICK; and JAMAA J. MYRICK, Defendant. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 On January 27, 2017, Defendants Danielle Myrick and Jamaa J. Myrick filed a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer 22 23 24 25 case from the Superior Court of California for the County of Solano. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Solano for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 20 21 No. 2:17-cv-00194-GEB-KJN “There jurisdiction,’ is and a the ‘strong presumption removing party has against the removal burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the 26 27 28 * 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 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 2 be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must - 3 remand 4 subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 5 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) 6 (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 7 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). an 8 9 10 action sua Defendant removable to this sponte asserts court if in it determines the NOR of the because that that it this existence lacks case of is federal questions, granting this court jurisdiction. (NOR at 2.) 11 However, a of Complaint “[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable if the 14 complaint 15 Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). “The 16 presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed 17 by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 18 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on 19 the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Retail 20 Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 21 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) 22 (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)). 23 “Moreover, ‘it is well established that [the] plaintiff is the 24 master 25 jurisdiction.’” Goraya v. Martinez, No. 15-2375-JAM-KJN, 2015 WL 26 7281611, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2015) (quoting Loowdermilk v. 27 U.S. First Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007) 28 (remanding unlawful detainer action sua sponte), overruled on [its] affirmatively complaint and 2 for unlawful Plaintiff 13 not claim reveals alleges does California the 12 of single review allege can plead a detainer, federal to avoid and claim.” federal 1 other grounds, Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 2 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2013)). 3 For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 4 Superior Court of California for the County of Solano. 5 Dated: February 6, 2017 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?