Open Door Properties, LLC v. Efferin

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 12/19/2017 REMANDING CASE to Sacramento Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Hunt, G)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

OPEN DOOR PROPERTIES, LLC,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

No. 2:17-cv-02638-GEB-AC

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

v.
SONIA EFFERIN,

11

Defendant.

12
13

On December 18, 2017, Defendant proceeding in propria

14

persona filed a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer

15

action from the Superior Court of California for the County of

16

Sacramento.

17

following reasons, the Court sua sponte remands this case to the

18

Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento for

19

lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Notice of Removal (“NOR”) 1, ECF No. 1.

For the

20

“Only state-court [cases] that originally could have

21

been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by

22

the defendant.”

23

(1987).

24

jurisdiction,’

25

establishing that removal is proper.”

26

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011)

27

*

28

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

“There
and

is

a
the

‘strong
removing

presumption
party

has

against
the

removal

burden

of

Lindley Contours, LLC v.

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

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-

10

Defendant alleges in her Notice of Removal that federal

11

question jurisdiction justifies removal because her eviction is

12

in violation of the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009

13

[‘PTFA’].”

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

NOR & 3, 13.

Specifically, Defendant contends:

The PTFA is . . . the entire basis for the
action to eject a bona fide residential
tenant of a foreclosed landlord. Even without
any defense of the PTFA being raised,
Plaintiff cannot state a cause of action to
remove such a tenant without framing the
prima facide [sic] case in the language of
the PTFA. The notice purports to comply with
the PTFA, and without the reference to the
90-day notice required by the PTFA, Plaintiff
would be unable to evict any such tenant.
Id. at ¶ 13.
Defendant

has

not

shown

the

existence

of

federal

22

question jurisdiction.

Review of the Complaint reveals Plaintiff

23

alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer under California

24

law, and “[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable

25

if the complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim.”

26

Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003).

27

the “well-pleaded complaint rule[,] . . . ‘a case may not be

28

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . .
2

Under

1

even

2

complaint . . . .’”

3

Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014)

4

(quoting

Caterpillar,

5

Discover

Bank,

6

cannot

be

7

defense . . . .”).

8
9

the

defense

556

is

anticipated

Retail

482

U.S.

U.S.

49,

predicated

Prop.

60

on

at

Trust

v.

393);

(2009)
an

in

see

the

United

also

(“Federal

actual

plaintiff’s

or

Bhd.

Vaden

of

v.

jurisdiction
anticipated

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

10
11

if

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 19, 2017

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