(UD)(PS) Yazdi v. Garcia et al

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 05/08/24 REMANDING CASE to Stanislaus County Superior Court. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED(Licea Chavez, V)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Aminian Yazdi, Trustee of the Aminian Yazdi
Trust,

15

ORDER

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:24-cv-01311-KJM-CKD

v.
Juan Garcia and Aracelia Olivares,
Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff commenced this unlawful detainer action in state court under California law as a

19

limited civil case in which the amount claimed does not exceed $10,000. See Compl. at 14,1 Ex.

20

1, ECF No. 1. Defendant Olivares, who is not represented by counsel, then removed the action to

21

this court. Contrary to the notice of removal, the complaint asserts no federal claims, and the

22

amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000. This court therefore lacks jurisdiction. See

23

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) (removal jurisdiction); id. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction); id. § 1332

24

(diversity jurisdiction).

25

Defendant alleges in its notice of removal that this action involves a federal question. See

26

Not. Removal at 4. As noted above, however, the complaint asserts no federal claims, and under
1

All page ranges refer to the page numbers applied by the CM/ECF system at the top right
of each page.
1

1

the longstanding “well-pleaded complaint rule,” a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the

2

plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].”

3

Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question

4

jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. See Vaden v.

5

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

6

A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte if a defendant has not established

7

federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that

8

the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded . . . .”); Enrich v.

9

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel

10
11
12

Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). This action is therefore remanded to the state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 8, 2024.

13
14

2