Idean, Inc. et al v. Ross

Filing 4

SUA SPONTE REMEND ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. on 11/22/2017 REMANDING CASE to Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED (Reader, L)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 No. 2:17-cv-02397-GEB-DB 8 IDEAN, INC. and LEGACY MORTGAGE AND REAL ESTATE INC., 9 Plaintiffs, SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER* 10 11 12 v. ADRIAN LAMONT ROSS, and DOES 1-5, INCLUSIVE, Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Defendant 24 25 Lamont Ross removes this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento asserting that the removal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. No. 1. Notice of Removal (“NOR”), ECF Defendant also characterizes his removal petition as a complaint; however, it is evident that what he characterizes as a complaint is a counterclaim, which is not an adequate basis for removal. 22 23 Adrian “There jurisdiction,’ is and a the ‘strong removing presumption 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) 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 (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). 2 “If 3 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 4 be remanded.” 5 - remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks 6 subject matter jurisdiction.” 7 08985 MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 8 2012) (citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. 9 Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)). at any 10 time before final judgment 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). it appears that the “The court may - indeed must GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12- Defendant asserts in the Notice of Removal that both 11 federal question and diversity removal jurisdiction exist. NOR 12 2:15; 6:10–11. 13 federal question jurisdiction. 14 plaintiffs 15 California law, and “[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not 16 be removable if the complaint does not affirmatively allege a 17 federal claim.” 18 (2003). 19 may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 20 defense 21 plaintiff’s complaint . . . .’” 22 Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 23 2014) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 24 (1987)). 25 rest 26 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009); Bank of New York Mellon v. 27 Flores, 2:12–cv–00435, 2012 WL 1981329, at *4 (E.D. Cal. June 1, 28 2012)(“An anticipated defense or counterclaim cannot establish a However, Defendant has not shown the existence of allege a single Review of the complaint reveals claim for unlawful detainer under Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 Under the “well-pleaded complaint rule[,] . . . ‘a case . upon . . even Similarly, an actual if the “federal or defense is anticipated in the Retail Prop. Trust v. United [question] anticipated 2 jurisdiction counterclaim.” [cannot] Vaden v. 1 federal question because such a defense or counterclaim does not 2 appear on the face of the complaint.”). 3 attempted to create federal question subject matter jurisdiction 4 by adding defenses and claims under RESPA to his petition for 5 removal and characterizing what he added as his complaint for his 6 claims, his obvious counterclaims do not confer the federal court 7 with 8 Martinez, 2010 WL 1266887, at *1 (N.D.Cal. Mar.29, 2010)(stating 9 “allegations removal jurisdiction. in 10 complaint cannot 11 [a] Cf., removal provide Aurora notice this Although Defendant has court or Loan [an] with Servs., answer federal LLC to v. the question jurisdiction.”). 12 Further, Defendant has not shown satisfaction of the 13 diversity of citizenship requirement for removal jurisdiction to 14 exist 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 15 Therefore, this case is remanded to the Superior Court 16 of California for the County of Sacramento. 17 Dated: November 22, 2017 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?