California Equity Management Group, Inc. v. Jimenez

Filing 9

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 4/23/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2013)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 Northern District of California United States District Court 11 12 CALIFORNIA EQUITY MANAGEMENT GROUP, INC., Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 Case No. 13-cv-1222 JSC ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 15 16 AURORA JIMENEZ and DOES 1-10, Defendants. 17 18 Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants Aurora 19 20 Jimenez and Does 1-10 in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. 21 Defendant Jimenez, representing herself, subsequently purported to remove the action to this 22 Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The Court reviewed the Notice of Removal, 23 determined that federal question jurisdiction does not exist, and ordered Defendant to show 24 cause as to why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 1 25 (Dkt. No. 4.) Defendant failed to respond to the order to show cause. 26 27 28 1 The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). 1 Defendant, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bears the burden of 2 establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal 3 statute against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). 4 Further, when a case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to 5 satisfy itself that it has federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 6 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004). “Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question 7 exists on the face of a well-pleaded complaint.” ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda, No. 12-2418, 2012 8 WL 2077311, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 8, 2012). In particular, she explains that “Defendants’ demurrer, a pleading depend on the determination 11 Northern District of California Defendant alleges that “[t]he complaint presents federal questions.” (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶ 6.) 10 United States District Court 9 of Defendants’ rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Id. at ¶ 10.) The removed 12 complaint makes only a state law claim for unlawful detainer. (Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 7-10.) 13 Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction. ING Bank, FSB, 2012 WL 14 2077311, at *1. That Defendant’s demurrer raised federal questions is irrelevant; a defendant 15 cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or raising defenses. Holmes 16 Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation, 535 U.S. 826, 830-31 (2002); Federal Nat. Mortg. 17 Ass’n v. Sue Lin Poh, No. 12-2707, 2012 WL 3727266, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 28, 2012) 18 (remanding removed unlawful detainer action). 19 Accordingly, this case is REMANDED to the Alameda County Superior Court. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 Dated: April 23, 2013 _________________________________ JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?