Mohrhardt-Attilio Smoth Trust et al. v. Maravilla

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 2/14/2017 REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento. Certified Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

PHILIP MOHRHARDT,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. 2:17-cv-00288-GEB-EFB

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

v.
BRENDA MARAVILLA,

11

Defendant.

12
13

On February 10, 2017, Defendant Brenda Maravilla filed

14

a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer case from the

15

Superior

16

(Notice

17

reasons, the Court sua sponte remands this case to the Superior

18

Court of California for the County of Sacramento for lack of

19

subject matter jurisdiction.

Court
of

of

Removal

“There

20

California

is

a

‘strong

No.

County
1.)

For

presumption

following

against

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011)

24

(quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)).

25

“If

26

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

27

*

28

judgment

it

the

removal

23

final

has

the

establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v.

before

party

Sacramento.

22

time

removing

of

jurisdiction,’

any

the

ECF

the

21

at

and

(“NOR”),

for

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

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must -

2

remand

3

subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985

4

MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012)

5

(citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co.,

6

346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

an

7

action

sua

Defendant
this

asserts

in

it

determines

the

NOR

of

the

that

it

this

9

case

of

Complaint

“[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable if the

13

complaint

14

Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). “The

15

presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed

16

by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal

17

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on

18

the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Retail

19

Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768

20

F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)

21

(quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)).

22

“Moreover, ‘it is well established that [the] plaintiff is the

23

master

24

jurisdiction.’”

25

2015

26

Loowdermilk v. U.S. First Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th

27

Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds, Rodriguez v. AT & T

28

Mobility

of

[its]

Servs.

affirmatively

complaint

Goraya

7281611,

at

LLC,

for

v.
*2

and

allege

can

Martinez,
(E.D.

728

F.3d
2

unlawful

Plaintiff

12

not

claim

reveals

federal

alleges

does

California

the

of

is

11

WL

single

review

existence

lacks

questions, granting this court jurisdiction. (NOR at 2.)

a

because

that

removable

However,

court

if

8

10

to

sponte

a

plead
No.

Cal.

975,

detainer,

federal

to

avoid

and

claim.”

federal

2:15-cv-2375-JAM-KJN,

Nov.

977

17,

2015)

(9th

Cir.

(quoting

2013))

1

(remanding unlawful detainer action sua sponte).

2

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the

3

Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento.

4

Dated:

February 14, 2017

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