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.)

Download PDF
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?