North Village Development, Inc. et al v. Lewis

Filing 3

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 5/2/2017 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED to Solano County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

NORTH VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT,
INC,
Plaintiff,

9

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

v.

10
11

No. 2:17-cv-00918-GEB-KJN

DETRA LEWIS,
Defendant.

12
13
14

On May 1, 2017, Defendant Detra Lewis filed a Notice of

15

Removal removing this unlawful detainer case from the Superior

16

Court of California for the County of Solano. (Notice of Removal

17

(“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court sua

18

sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California for

19

the County of Solano for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
“There

20

is

presumption

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

23

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

before

final

party

judgment

has

it

the

removal

22

time

removing

against

jurisdiction,’

any

the

‘strong

21

at

and

a

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 [a case] sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

7

Defendant

argues

NOR

question

complaint

“[t]he

federal

presents

9

federal questions,” and his state court filings raise questions

11

because

that

removal

of federal law.

exists

the

8

10

jurisdiction

in

NOR ¶¶ 6, 8, 10.

However,

the

Complaint

attached

to

the

NOR

only

12

contains a California unlawful detainer claim.

NOR Ex. A, at 11–

13

13.

14

the complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim.”

15

Beneficial

16

Furthermore, “[f]ederal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an

17

actual or anticipated defense.”

18

49, 60 (2009).

19

jurisdiction and this case is remanded to the Superior Court of

20

California for the County of Solano.

21

Dated:

“As a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable if

Nat’l

Bank

v.

Anderson,

539

U.S.

1,

6

(2003).

Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S.

Therefore, the federal court lacks subject matter

May 2, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2