(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.)

Download PDF
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

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?