(UD)(PS) Smith v. Alhindi

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/3/2019 REMANDING CASE to San Joaquin County Superior Court for all future proceedings. Defendant's #2 motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

LYNN F. SMITH,

10

No.

2:19-cv-02000

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

EHAB ALHINDI,

13

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT
Defendant.

14
15

The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral

16

to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and

17

Recommendations in this case.

18

(“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may

19

retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate

20

Judge.”).

21

See Local Rule 302(d)

On October 3, 2019 Ehab Alhindi filed a Notice of Removal

22

with this Court, seeking to remove an action from San Joaquin

23

County Superior Court.

24

following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to San

25

Joaquin County Superior Court.

26

Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.

For the

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action

27

to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction.

28

Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)
1

1

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th

2

Cir. 2003)).

3

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

4

case shall be remanded.

5

defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file

6

a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the

7

initial pleading.

8

removal of an action to federal court has the burden of

9

establishing federal jurisdiction in the case.

10
11

If at any time before final judgment it appears

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

Generally, a

A defendant seeking

California ex

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack

12

inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction.

13

can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States

14

Constitution and Congress.

15

diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which

16

the United States is a party.

17

Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545

18

(1989).

19

over civil actions.

20

matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the

21

Court sua sponte.

22

Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996).

23

more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.

24

Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon.

25

it is nothing.”

26

1988).

27
28

Federal courts

Generally, those cases involve

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

Lack of subject

Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods.,
“Nothing is to be

Without jurisdiction

In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should
be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal.
2

1

Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir.

2

2005).

3

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing

4

that removal is proper.

5

Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche

6

Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988).

7

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the

8

right of removal in the first instance.

9

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

10

The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction

Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach &

Federal

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

Here, Defendant attempts to remove an unlawful detainer

11

action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction. He cites 28

12

U.S.C. § 1332 and 12 U.S.C. § 2605.13 in support of his

13

jurisdictional argument.

14

subject matter jurisdiction before this Court because the

15

complaint filed in the state court contains a single cause of

16

action for unlawful detainer based on California Code of Civil

17

Procedure § 1161a.

18

the province of state court.

19

federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses

20

to a notice of removal will not succeed.

21

556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot

22

“rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy

23

Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law

24

defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a

25

federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption

26

and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”).

27
28

Defendant is unable to establish

Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within
A defendant’s attempt to create

Vaden v. Discover Bank,

In determining the presence or absence of federal
jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule”
3

1

applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only

2

when a federal question is presented on the face of the

3

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

4

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

5

established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and

6

can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.”

7

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro.

8

Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v.

9

First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law

Caterpillar Inc. v.

Moreover, “it is well

Lowdermilk v. U.S.

10

that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the

11

plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal

12

law.”).

13

Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim.

The

14

face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does

15

not present a federal question.

16

avoids federal question jurisdiction.

17

federal issue through his answer or demurrer.

Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint
Defendant cannot inject a

18

The Court REMANDS this case to San Joaquin County Superior

19

Court for all future proceedings. Defendant’s motion to proceed

20

in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot.

21

Dated: October 3, 2019

22

/s/ John A. Mendez_________________

23

United States District Court Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4