Louden, LLC v. Lopez et al

Filing 14

ORDER REMANDING CASE., ***Civil Case Terminated.. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/30/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2013)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7
8
9

LOUDEN, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10

Case No: C 13-0061 SBA
ORDER REMANDING
ACTION

v.

11

Docket 6

JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ, and NORMA
12 LOPEZ,
13

Defendants.

14

On March 14, 2012, Plaintiff Louden, LLC filed the instant unlawful detainer action

15
16

against Ignacio J. Pajarillo and Does 1-10 in the Superior Court of California, County of

17

Solano. Compl., Dkt. 1. The complaint seeks possession of certain real property located at

18

124 Valley Oak Lane, Vallejo, California 94591. See id. Plaintiff obtained ownership of

19

said property through a non-judicial foreclosure. See id. ¶ 5. The occupants of the

20

property, Defendants Juan Manuel Lopez and Norma Lopez (collectively, "Defendants"),

21

proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal alleging that this Court has subject matter

22

jurisdiction over the instant action based on federal question jurisdiction. Notice of

23

Removal at 2, Dkt. 1. On January 14, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion to remand. Dkt. 6.

24

Having read and considered the papers filed in connection with this matter and being fully

25

informed, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to remand, for the reasons stated

26

below. The Court, in its discretion, finds this matter suitable for resolution without oral

27

argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); N.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

28

///

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

I.

DISCUSSION
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), "any civil action brought in a State court of which the

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the
defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States. . . ." 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts "have original jurisdiction of all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." Federal
question jurisdiction is presumed to be absent unless the removing party which seeks to
invoke the Court’s jurisdiction shows that plaintiff has alleged: (1) a federal cause of
action, Am. Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257, 260 (1916) ("a suit
arises under the law that creates the action"); (2) a state cause of action that turns on a
substantial dispositive issue of federal law, Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers
Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983); Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co., 255 U.S.
180, 199 (1921); or (3) a state cause of action that Congress has transformed into an
inherently federal cause of action by completely preempting the field of its subject matter,
Avco Corp. v. Aero Lodge No. 735, 390 U.S. 557, 560 (1968).
A federal court must satisfy itself of its jurisdiction over the subject matter before
proceeding to the merits of the case. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 577,
583 (1999). In the case of a removed action, a district court must remand the case to state
court "if at any time before the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992). "The presumption against removal means that the defendant always has the burden
of establishing that removal is proper." Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d
1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009). "[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal."
Luther v. Countrywide Home Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008).
As such, any doubts regarding the propriety of the removal favor remanding the case. See
Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.
Here, the notice of removal alleges that Defendants have been "discriminated"
against by Plaintiff in violation of federal law. See Notice of Removal at 2. Although not
-2-

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

entirely clear, Defendants appear to allege that Plaintiff violated federal law by failing to
provide them with a 90-day notice to quit as required by "S. 896 SEC. 702 EFFECT OF
FLORECLOSURE ON PREEXISING TENANCY." See id. However, this is not a proper
basis for removal based on federal question jurisdiction. Federal subject matter jurisdiction
must be apparent from the face of the complaint, and cannot lie in anticipated defenses.
Specifically, federal courts have jurisdiction over cases in which a "well-pleaded
complaint" establishes that federal law creates the cause of action. Franchise Tax Board,
463 U.S. at 27-28. Defensive matters are not considered to confer federal question
jurisdiction for removal purposes: "a defendant may not remove a case to federal court
unless the plaintiff's complaint establishes that the case 'arises under' federal law." Id. at 10
(emphasis in original). In reviewing the complaint, it is readily apparent that this case does
not satisfy the jurisdictional requirements for federal subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's
complaint is for unlawful detainer and does not assert any federal claims. Thus, it is
facially apparent that this case does not meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for
federal subject matter jurisdiction.
II.

17

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

18

1.

21
22
23
24
25
26

Plaintiff's motion to remand is GRANTED.

2.

Defendants' requests to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. 2, 3) are DENIED as

3.

The hearing currently scheduled for April 2, 2012 is VACATED.

4.

19
20

CONCLUSION

The instant action is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California,

moot.

County of Solano.
5.

The Clerk shall close this file and terminate all pending matters.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 1/30/13

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

27
28
-3-

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

LOUDEN LLC,

5
6

Plaintiff,
v.

7
JUAN MANUEL LOPEZ et al,
8
Defendant.
9

/

10
11

Case Number: CV13-00061 SBA

12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

13
14
15
16
17

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on January 31, 2013, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.

18
19
20
21
22

Juan Manuel Lopez
124 Valley Oak Lane
Vallejo, CA 94591

24

Norma Lopez
124 Valley Oak Lane
Vallejo, CA 94591

25

San Francisco, Ca 94104

23

26
27

Dated: January 31, 2013
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

28

By: Lisa Clark, Deputy Clerk
-4-