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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?