Singh v. Robles et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 3/7/2017 REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

NINDER SINGH,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10
11

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

v.
DANIEL ROBLES, and, AMANDA
QUEZADA
Defendants.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

On March 3, 2017, Defendants Daniel Robles and Amanda
Quezada filed a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer
case from the Superior Court of California for the County of San
Joaquin. (Notice of Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) However, this
case will be remanded to the Superior Court of California for the
County of San Joaquin for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

19
20
21
22
23
24
25

No. 2:17-cv-00467-GEB-AC

“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

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall

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

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

2

remand

3

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

4

2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (citing Kelton

5

Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190,

6

1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

an

7

action

sua

Defendants

sponte

assert

if

in

it

determines

the

NOR

that

that

this

it

lacks

case

is

8

removable to federal court because of the existence of federal

9

questions which provides federal subject matter jurisdiction over

10

this case. (NOR at 2.)

11

However,
single

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.’”

26

2015

27

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

28

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

of

[its]

affirmatively

complaint

Goraya

7281611,

at

for

v.
*2

and

allege

can

Martinez,
(E.D.

2

unlawful

Plaintiff

13

not

claim

reveals

alleges

does

California

the

12

WL

a

review

Cal.

a

plead
No.
Nov.

detainer,

federal

to

avoid

and

claim.”

federal

2:15-cv-2375-JAM-KJN,
17,

2015)

(quoting

1

Mobility

2

(remanding unlawful detainer action sua sponte).

3

Servs.

LLC,

728

F.3d

975,

977

(9th

Cir.

2013))

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the

4

Superior Court of California for the County of San Joaquin.

5

Dated:

March 7, 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