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)

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