(UD)(PS)Alvernaz Partners, LLC v. Pitts

Filing 3

SUA SPONTE ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/7/21 REMANDING CASE to San Joaquin County Superior Court and DENYING as moot #2 Motion to Proceed IFP. CASE CLOSED. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ALVERNAZ PARTNERS, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

MARIA PITTS,

15

No.

2:21-cv-00011-JAM-CKD

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT
Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral
to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and
Recommendations in this case.

See Local Rule 302(d)

(“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may
retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate
Judge.”).
On January 4, 2021, Defendant Maria Pitts filed a Notice of

25

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

26

Joaquin County Superior Court.

27

Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.

For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case

28
1

1
2
3
4

to San Joaquin County Superior Court.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action
to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction.
Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009)

5
6
7

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th
Cir. 2003)).

If at any time before final judgment it appears

8

that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the

9

case shall be remanded.

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Generally, a

10

defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file

11

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

12
13

initial pleading.

28 U.S.C. § 1446(b).

The defendant seeking

removal of an action to federal court has the burden of

14
15
16
17

establishing federal jurisdiction in the case.

California ex

rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004).
Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer

18

action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction.

19

Removal at 2.

20
21

Notice of

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction

and lack inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction.
Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the

22
23
24

United States Constitution and Congress.

Generally, those cases

involve diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases

25

in which the United States is a party.

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life

26

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

27

545 (1989).

Federal courts are presumptively without

28
2

1

jurisdiction over civil actions.

2

Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be

3
4

raised by the Court sua sponte.

Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377.

Attorneys Trust v. Videotape

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

5
6
7

“Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its
jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without

8

jurisdiction it is nothing.”

9

(9th Cir. 1988).

10
11
12
13

In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006

The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should
be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal.
Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir.
2005).

The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction

14
15
16

means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing
that removal is proper.

Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach &

17

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

18

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

19

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

20
21

right of removal in the first instance.

Federal

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

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

22
23
24

In this case, Defendant is unable to establish subject
matter jurisdiction before this Court because the complaint filed

25

in the state court apparently contains a single cause of action

26

for unlawful detainer.

27

within the province of state court.

Unlawful detainer actions are strictly

28
3

A defendant’s attempt to

1

create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or

2

defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed.

3
4

Vaden v.

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question
jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated

5
6
7

counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075
(9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does

8

not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense

9

is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the

10
11
12
13

plaintiff’s complaint.”).
In determining the presence or absence of federal
jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule”
applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only

14
15
16

when a federal question is presented on the face of the
plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

Caterpillar Inc. v.

17

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

18

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

19

can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.”

20
21

Moreover, “it is well

Lowdermilk v. U.S.

Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro.
Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v.

22
23
24

First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law
that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the

25

plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal

26

law.”).

27

Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim.

28
4

The

1

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

2

not present a federal question.

3
4

Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint

avoids federal question jurisdiction.

Defendant cannot inject a

federal issue through her answer.

5
6
7
8
9
10

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to San Joaquin
County Superior Court for all future proceedings.
Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2,
is DENIED as moot.
Dated:

January 7, 2021

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5