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)
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?