De Anza Land and Leisure Corp. v. Orr et al

Filing 3

ORDER: The Court Remands this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Defendant's 2 IFP Motion is Denied as moot. Signed by Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz on 2/3/2015.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service including Superior Court of California, County of San Diego)(rlu)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No. 15cv182 BTM(JMA)

DE ANZA LAND AND LEISURE
CORP.,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING CASE

13
14
15
16

v.
RONALD R. ORR, DOES 1-10,
inclusive
Defendants,

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Defendant Ronald R. Orr removed Plaintiff De Anza Land and Leisure
Corporation’s unlawful detainer action against him from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, and filed a concurrent Motion for Leave to
Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 42 U.S.C. § 3604 (F)(3)(A).
The matter against Defendant arises under state law and does not require
resolution of a substantial question of federal law. See U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n
v. Lasoff, 2010 WL 669239 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2010) (holding that unlawful
detainer action did not raise a federal question); HSBC Bank USA, NA v.
Valencia, 2010 WL 546721 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 10, 2010) (remanding unlawful
detainer action); Wells Fargo Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. Cencil, 2010 WL 2179778
(N.D. Cal. May 27, 2010) (granting motion to remand unlawful detainer action).
1

15cv182 BTM(JMA)

1

Any federal defenses or counterclaims Defendant may wish to bring do not give

2

rise to federal question jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers

3

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983) (explaining that a case may not be

4

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense). Here, Defendant

5

attempts to remove the case solely by raising a federal defense grounded in the

6

Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. 3604(f)(3)(A). Therefore, Defendant’s Notice of

7

Removal fails to establish federal question jurisdiction.

8

Additionally, the Court has no basis for concluding that diversity

9

jurisdiction exists. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). According to the Complaint, the

10

Defendant appears to be a citizen of California and he does not allege the

11

Plaintiff’s state of incorporation or principal place of business. Furthermore, the

12

Complaint states that the claim does not exceed $ 10,000. Dkt. No 1-2.

13

Therefore, complete diversity between the parties is lacking and the amount in

14

controversy is less than $75,000.

15

The removing defendant always has the burden of establishing that

16

removal is proper, and the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to

17

state court. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Defendant

18

has not satisfied his burden. Therefore, the Court REMANDS this action to the

19

Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. Defendant’s IFP Motion is

20

DENIED as moot.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 3, 2015

24
25

BARRY TED MOSKOWITZ, Chief Judge
United States District Court

26
27
28
2

15cv182 BTM(JMA)