Lodi Hotel Investors v. Luna

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Charles R. Breyer granting 10 Motion to Remand. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/21/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15

No. C 13-01760 CRB

LODI HOTEL INVESTORS,

ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff,
v.
MANUEL LUNA,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Defendant Manuel Luna, proceeding pro se, removed this case from state court on

18

April 18, 2013. See dkt. 1. Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Remand, see dkt. 10, and the

19

Court finds this matter is suitable for resolution without oral argument or further briefing,

20

pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b). Because this case does not involve any federal claims,

21

the Court REMANDS it to state court.

22

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), “any civil action brought in a State court of which

23

the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the

24

defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and

25

division embracing the place where such action is pending.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, a

26

district court has original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

27

laws, or treaties of the United States.” The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction

28

exists is on the party seeking removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against
removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal

1

citations omitted). Accordingly, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as

2

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. at 566. Further, a district court must remand

3

the case to state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the district court

4

lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

5

Defendant asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because “Defendant

6

strongly believes he has been discriminated [sic] and that [Plaintiff] has violated federal

7

law.” See dkt. 1 at 1-2. Defendant’s anticipated federal defense do not give this Court

8

jurisdiction. See Alton Box Bd. Co. v. Esprit de Corp., 682 F.2d 1267, 1274 (9th Cir. 1982)

9

(“That anticipated federal defenses do not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction is

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

a principle too well-established in this circuit to merit discussion.”).
Rather, federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the

12

face of a well-pleaded complaint. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179,

13

1183 (9th Cir. 2002). The state court complaint here involves only a claim of unlawful

14

detainer. See dkt. 1 Ex. A (“Complaint – Unlawful Detainer”). Therefore, no federal

15

question is presented. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. 11-01932, 2011 WL 2194117,

16

at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. 10-8203, 2010 WL

17

4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Moreover, because Defendant appears to be what

18

is known as a local defendant (residing in the State in which this action has been brought),

19

there is also no diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

20
21
22

Accordingly, the Case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of San Joaquin.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

23
24

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: May 21, 2013

25
26
27
28

G:\CRBALL\2013\1760\order re remand.wpd

2