Prime Ascot, LP v. Williams
Filing
3
ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/7/2017 REMANDING case 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
PRIME ASCOT, LP DBA BLUE ROCK
VILLAGE,
Plaintiff,
9
SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*
v.
10
11
No. 2:17-cv-02318-GEB-CKD
CHANEL WILLIAMS, and DOES 110, INCLUSIVE,
12
Defendants.
13
14
On November 6, 2017, Defendant Chanel Williams filed a
15
Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer action from the
16
Superior Court of California for the County of Solano. (Notice of
17
Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court
18
sua sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California
19
for 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
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)).
7
an
action
sua
sponte
if
it
determines
that
it
lacks
Defendant asserts in the Notice of Removal (“NOR”) that
8
federal
question
9
Defendant contends “Plaintiff was required to state a cause of
[Protecting
exists.
5-14.)
(“PTFA”)], but sought to avoid those protections by filing this
12
action as an ‘Unlawful Detainer’ by artful pleadings in State
13
Court.” (Id. at & 7.) Defendant further argues that “the PTFA is
14
essential to the right of possession, . . . [and]
15
cannot
16
question[] in the Complaint.” (Id. & 9–10.)
However,
review
by
of
omitting
the
at
&
11
removal
Tenants
(NOR
action
defeat
the
jurisdiction
10
17
under
removal
[a]
Complaint
Foreclosure
necessary
reveals
Act
plaintiff
federal
Plaintiff
18
alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer under California
19
law, and “[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable
20
if the complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim.”
21
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). “The
22
presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed
23
by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal
24
jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on
25
the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Retail
26
Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768
27
F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted)
28
(quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)).
2
1
“Moreover, ‘it is well established that [the] plaintiff is the
2
master
3
jurisdiction.’”
4
2015
5
Loowdermilk v. U.S. First Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th
6
Cir. 2007), overruled on other grounds, Rodriguez v. AT & T
7
Mobility
8
(remanding unlawful detainer action sua sponte).
9
10
11
WL
of
[its]
Goraya
7281611,
Servs.
complaint
at
LLC,
v.
*2
and
can
Martinez,
(E.D.
728
F.3d
plead
No.
Cal.
975,
to
avoid
federal
2:15-cv-2375-JAM-KJN,
Nov.
977
17,
2015)
(9th
Cir.
(quoting
2013))
For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the
Superior Court of California for the County of Solano.
Dated:
November 7, 2017
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?