Lefever Mattson, Inc. v. Bivens

Filing 3

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 9/7/2017 REMANDING this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento. CASE CLOSED. (Michel, G.)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

LEFEVER MATTSON, INC.,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. 2:17-cv-01848-GEB-CKD

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

v.
VERONICA BIVENS,

11

Defendant.

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

On

22
23
24
25

6,

2017,

Defendant

filed

a

Notice

of

Removal removing this unlawful detainer action from the Superior
Court of California for the County of Sacramento.
Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.)

(Notice of

For the following reasons, the

Court sua sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of
California

for

the

County

of

Sacramento

for

lack

of

subject

matter jurisdiction.

20
21

September

“There
jurisdiction,’

is
and

a
the

‘strong

presumption

removing

party

establishing that removal is proper.”

has

against
the

removal

burden

of

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.”

3

- remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks

4

subject matter jurisdiction.”

5

08985 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15,

6

2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins.

7

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

8
9
10

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

“The court may - indeed must

GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-

Defendant alleges in the Notice of Removal that federal
question

jurisdiction

justifies

removal.

(NOR

¶

5.)

Specifically, Defendant contends:

11

[T]he “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act
2009,”
12
U.S.C.
5220,
note
hereafter
“PFTA”[,] preempted State Law as to bona fide
Residential tenants of foreclosed Landlords.

12
13

. . . .

14

Thus, in order to evict a bona fide
residential tenant of a foreclosed Landlord,
Plaintiff was required to state a cause of
action under the PTFA, but sought to avoid
those protections by filing this action as an
“Unlawful Detainer” . . . .

15
16
17
18

(Id. ¶¶ 6–7 (bracket omitted).)

19

reveals Plaintiff alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under

20

state law.

21

Indeed, review of the Complaint

See id. at 10–12.
“[U]nder the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s

22

claims

or

23

Polymatic Props., Inc. v. Mack, No. 2:12-cv-2848-LKK-EFB PS, 2012

24

WL 5932618, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2012) (citing Takeda v. Nw.

25

Nat’l

26

Defendant’s “reference to the PTFA is best characterized as a

27

defense

28

Carey, Civ. No. S-11-3281 GEB GGH PS, 2012 WL 159621, at *2 (E.D.

Life

or

defenses

Ins.

may

Co.,

potential

not

765

serve

F.2d

815,

counterclaim.”

2

as

a

822

basis

(9th

Parkland

for

removal.”

Cir.

Sec.,

1985)).

Inc.

v.

1

Cal. Jan 18, 2012).

2

existence of federal question removal jurisdiction.

3

Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v. Ghosal, No. 14cv2582-GPC(WVG), 2014 WL

4

5587199,

5

detainer action sua sponte).

6
7

at

*2

(S.D.

Therefore, Defendant has not shown the

Cal.

Nov.

3,

2014)

See Deutsche

(remanding

unlawful

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the
Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:

September 7, 2017

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3