NGA Investment, LLC v. Beronilla et al

Filing 11

ORDER REMANDING CASE by Judge Paul S. Grewal granting 5 and denying-as-moot 6 (psglc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

SAN JOSE DIVISION

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11

NGA INVESTMENT, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,
v.

13
14

REUBEN BERONILLA and
MARIA V. BERONILLA,

15

Defendant.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-01357-PSG
ORDER REMANDING CASE
(Re: Docket Nos. 5 and 6)

Before the court is Plaintiff NGA Investment, LLC’s motion to remand this case to state

17
18

court. 1 Defendants Reuben Beronilla and Maria V. Beronilla have not filed a timely opposition. 2

19

The court finds this motion suitable for disposition on the papers pursuant to the civil local rules. 3

20

After considering the arguments, the court GRANTS NGA’s motion.

21

I. LEGAL STANDARDS

22

The Beronillas’ notice of removal alleges this court possesses federal question jurisdiction

23
24
25

1

26

2

27

See Civil L.R. 7-3 (“The opposition must be filed and served not more than 14 days after the
motion was filed.”).
3

28

See Docket No. 5. NGA’s related motion to shorten time is denied-as-moot. See Docket No. 6.

See Civil L.R. 7-1(b) (“In the Judge’s discretion, or upon request by counsel and with the Judge’s
approval, a motion may be determined without oral argument or by telephone conference call.”).
1
Case No. 5:14-cv-01357-PSG
ORDER REMANDING CASE

1

over the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 4 “Federal courts may exercise federal-question

2

jurisdiction over an action in two situations. First, and most commonly, a federal court may

3

exercise federal-question jurisdiction if a federal right or immunity is ‘an element, and an essential

4

one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.’” 5 “Thus, the federal question on which jurisdiction is

5
6

premised cannot be supplied via a defense; rather, the federal question must ‘be disclosed upon the
face of the complaint, unaided by the answer.’” 6 Second, a federal court may have such

7
8
9

jurisdiction if a state-law claim “necessarily” raises “a stated federal issue, actually disputed and
substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally-approved

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” 7 Such a federal issue must be “a substantial

11

one, indicating a serious federal interest in claiming the advantages thought to be inherent in a

12

federal forum.” 8 “The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” 9 “The

13

defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” 10

14

II. DISCUSSION

15

This unlawful detainer case is based on a single property claim grounded in state law. 11

16
17
18
19
20
21

“State law prohibits a defendant from adding unrelated claims to an unlawful detainer action.” 12
4

See Docket No. 1-2; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original
jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States.”).
5

Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 2009)
(quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 11 (1983)).
6

Id. (quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 (1974)).

7

Grable & Sons Metal Prod., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005).

8

Id. at 313.

22
23
24
9

25

Placer Dome, 582 F.3d 1087 (citing Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002);
California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)).

26

10

27

Id. (citing Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); California ex rel.
Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)).
11

28

See HSBC Bank USA v. Ramirez, Case No. 08-cv-05638-RGK-CWX, 2008 WL 4724055, at *1
(C.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2008) (“The Complaint, however, states a single cause of action for unlawful
2
Case No. 5:14-cv-01357-PSG
ORDER REMANDING CASE