Kermani v. Amesa

Filing 4

ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Judge Charles R. Breyer on 3/4/2014. (crblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/4/2014)

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 14-00890 CRB

MASOUD KERMANI,

ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.
BRIAN AMESA,
Defendant.

/

16
17

Defendant Brian Amesa, proceeding pro se, removed this case from state court on

18

February 27, 2014. See dkt. 1. Because this case does not involve any federal claims, the

19

Court REMANDS it to state court.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

exists is on the party seeking removal, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against

27

removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal

28

citations omitted). Accordingly, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as
to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. at 566. Further, a district court must remand

1

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

2

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

3

Defendant asserts that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because of various

4

defenses under federal law that Defendant seeks to assert. See dkt. 1 at 2-3. But Defendant’s

5

anticipated federal defense does not give this Court jurisdiction. See Alton Box Bd. Co. v.

6

Esprit de Corp., 682 F.2d 1267, 1274 (9th Cir. 1982) (“That anticipated federal defenses do

7

not suffice to establish federal question jurisdiction is a principle too well-established in this

8

circuit to merit discussion.”). Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal

9

question exists on the face of a well-pleaded complaint. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002). The state court complaint here involves only a

11

claim of unlawful detainer. See dkt. 1 Ex. A (“Complaint for Unlawful Detainer”).

12

Therefore, no federal question is presented. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. 11-01932,

13

2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011); Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. 10-

14

8203, 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Moreover, because Defendant

15

appears to be what is known as a local defendant (residing in the State in which this action

16

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

17
18
19

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

20
21
22

CHARLES R. BREYER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: March 4, 2014

23
24
25
26
27
28
2