Butler v. Clarkson et al
Filing
4
ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/30/18 ORDERING that this action is REMANDED to Solano County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the ord er on the Clerk of the Solano County Superior Court, and reference the state case number (No. FCM157585) in the proof of service. Defendants' Motions to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 2 and 3 ) are DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the following unlawful detainer action: No. FCM157585. CASE CLOSED. (certified copy served on Solano County Superior Court, Case No. FCM157585) (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff,
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
ORDER
v.
SHANE CLARKSON, ROBERT
BURNS; and Does 1 to 5,
Defendants.
16
17
Case No.: 2:18-cv-00177-MCE-GGH-PS
WIWI BUTLER,
On January 26, 2018, Defendants SHANE CLARKSON AND ROBERT BURNS,
proceeding in pro se, filed a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the
Solano County Superior Court.1 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent duty to
ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is
on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against
removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)
(internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as
to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendant has failed to meet that burden.
1
28
Despite Defendants’ pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to
a Magistrate Judge. See E.D. Cal. Local R. 302(c)(21).
1
1
The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal
2
question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a) or (b). However, a
3
review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff does not allege any federal claims; instead,
4
Plaintiff alleges only unlawful detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-8.
5
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-
6
pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a
7
federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”
8
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the
9
complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2]
10
the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of
11
federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage
12
Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd.
13
v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).
14
Here, Plaintiff’s sole claim is for unlawful detainer under state law. At most,
15
Defendants argue that they have a defense under federal law. “A case may not be
16
removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is
17
anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is
18
the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of
19
Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000)
20
(citation and quotation marks omitted). Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28
21
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441(a) or (b).
22
Accordingly:
23
1. The action is REMANDED to the Solano County Superior Court.
24
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the
25
Clerk of the Solano County Superior Court, and reference the state case
26
number (No. FCM157585) in the proof of service.
27
28
3. Defendants’ Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF Nos. 2 and 3) are
DENIED as moot.
2
1
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.
2
5. The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the
3
4
5
following unlawful detainer action: No. FCM157585.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: January 30, 2018
6
7
8
9
10
11
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?