Citibank NA v. Torabi et al

Filing 4

ORDER granting Plaintiff's 2 Motion to Remand to State Court and denying as moot Plaintff's 3 Motion to Shorten Time. Court remands this action to state court. Signed by Judge Irma E. Gonzalez on 9/24/2012. (Certified copy of this Order mailed to San Diego County Superior Court) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
CITIBANK, N.A.,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2194 - IEG

10
Plaintiff,

ORDER:

11
1.
12

vs.

13
14

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND;

[Doc. No. 2]
2.

SEPEHR TORABI et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTION TO
SHORTEN TIME AS MOOT

[Doc. No. 3]

17
On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff Citibank, N.A., filed this action in San Diego County Superior
18
Court, alleging a single state law claim of unlawful detainer for damages not to exceed $10,000.
19
[See Doc. No. 1, Ex. 1.] On September 10, 2012, Defendant Sepehr Torabi removed to this Court,
20
invoking federal question jurisdiction on the basis that Plaintiff’s actions violated Defendants’
21
rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. [Doc. No. 1.] On September 17, 2012,
22
Plaintiff filed a motion to remand, [Doc. No. 2], and an ex parte motion to shorten time on the
23
motion to remand, [Doc. No. 3]. For the reasons below, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter
24
jurisdiction and thus GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to remand and DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte
25
motion to shorten time as moot.
26
DISCUSSION
27
“A civil case commenced in state court may, as a general matter, be removed by the
28
defendant to federal district court, if the case could have been brought there originally.” Martin v.
-1-

12cv2194

1

Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). But “[i]f at any time

2

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case

3

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Where, as here, removal is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §

4

1331, i.e., federal question jurisdiction, “a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless

5

the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of

6

State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 10

7

(1983). To “arise under” federal law, “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of

8

the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id.

9

at 11.

10

Here, Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a single state law claim for unlawful detainer, of which

11

no right or immunity under the Constitution or federal law is an essential element. [See Doc. No.

12

1, Ex. 1.] And under well-settled doctrine, Defendant’s responsive invocation of constitutional or

13

otherwise federal issues is beside the point. See Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 11 (explaining

14

that, under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, the complaint, rather than potential or even

15

necessary defenses or counterclaims, determines federal question jurisdiction). Thus, as no federal

16

question is essential to Plaintiff’s claims, no federal question jurisdiction exists. Id. Accordingly,

17

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

18

CONCLUSION

19

For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby REMANDS this action to state court and

20
21
22
23

DENIES Plaintiff’s motion to shorten time as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:

September 24, 2012

______________________________
IRMA E. GONZALEZ
United States District Judge

24
25
26
27
28
-2-

12cv2194