Sierra Equity Acquisitions, LLC v. Doleire et al
Filing
5
ORDER granting 4 Motion to Remand to State Court. Court remands this action to San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court terminates as moot Defendant's 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Court w arns Defendant that any further attempt to remove this action without an "objectively reasonable basis for removal" may result in an award of attys' fees for Plaintiff. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 10/28/2016. (Certified copy sent to San Diego Superior Court via US Mail Service) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
SIERRA EQUITY ACQUISITIONS,
LLC,
14
15
16
Case No. 16-cv-2670-BAS(JLB)
Plaintiff,
v.
HANS DOLEIRE,
17
Defendant.
18
19
ORDER:
(1) REMANDING ACTION TO
STATE COURT FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION; AND
(2) TERMINATING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED
IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS
MOOT
20
21
On September 27, 2016, Plaintiff Sierra Equity Acquisitions, LLC commenced
22
this unlawful-detainer action against Defendant Hans Doleire, who is proceeding pro
23
se, in the San Diego Superior Court. One month later, Defendant removed this action
24
to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, and concurrently filed a
25
motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”).
26
For the following reasons, the Court finds Defendant’s Notice of Removal is
27
deficient and REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of
28
subject matter jurisdiction.
–1–
16cv2670
1
I.
LEGAL STANDARD
2
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
3
Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized
4
by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.
5
(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited
6
jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting
7
jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow
8
Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006).
9
Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is
10
strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
11
(9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002);
12
O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The strong
13
presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the
14
burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also
15
Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990);
16
O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any
17
doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.
18
It is well-established that “a district court’s duty to establish subject matter
19
jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See United Investors Life
20
Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may
21
consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th
22
Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an
23
‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo
24
Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States
25
v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)).
26
//
27
//
28
//
–2–
16cv2670
1
II.
ANALYSIS
2
In order to invoke this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, the defendant
3
must demonstrate that the civil action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or
4
treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “Only state-court actions that
5
originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by
6
the defendant.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “It is settled
7
that the answer to this jurisdictional question must be determined solely from the face
8
of the complaint unaided by the answer, petition for removal or other papers.”
9
Farmco Stores, Inc. v. Newmark, 315 F. Supp. 396, 397 (E.D. Cal. 1970) (citing
10
Gully v. F. Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936); Stauffer v. Exley, 184 F.2d 962,
11
967 (9th Cir. 1950)).
12
“[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the
13
‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only
14
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded
15
complaint.”
16
(1998) (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)). A federal “defense is not
17
part
18
claim.” Id. (citing Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, (1987)). A case,
19
therefore, may not be removed to federal court based on a federal defense “even if
20
the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties admit
21
that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case.” Franchise Tax Bd. of
22
State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983); see
23
also Rivet, 522 U.S. at 475.
of
Rivet
a
v.
plaintiff’s
Regions
properly
Bank
of
pleaded
La.,
522
statement
U.S.
of
his
470,
or
475
her
24
There is no federal question apparent on the face of the complaint, which only
25
asserts a simple unlawful-detainer cause of action pursuant to California Code of
26
Civil Procedure § 1161. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203
27
GAF(SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful
28
detainer action does not arise under federal law.”); IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v.
–3–
16cv2670
1
Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234838, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan.
2
13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
3
where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful-detainer claim). The only
4
reference to a substantive federal statute is presented in defense of Defendant’s
5
position, and not from any assertions in the complaint, which is inadequate to create
6
federal subject matter jurisdiction. See Rivet, 522 U.S. at 475. In sum, this action
7
arises exclusively under California state law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
8
Furthermore, Defendant concedes that he is a California resident, but states
9
that Plaintiff’s citizenship is unknown. (Removal Notice ¶¶ 2-4.) Examining the
10
unlawful-detainer complaint more closely, Plaintiff asserts that it is “a California
11
Limited Liability Company in good standing with the Secretary of State of
12
California.” (Compl. ¶ 2.) Thus, even assessing subject matter jurisdiction through
13
the lens of diversity jurisdiction, Defendant fails to provide an adequate basis to
14
pursue this action in federal court because there is no complete diversity among the
15
parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
16
Having reviewed the unlawful-detainer complaint, the Court finds that there is
17
no jurisdictional basis for the removal. See Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Zimmerman, No.
18
2:15-cv-08268-CAS-MRWx, 2015 WL 6948576, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015)
19
(remanding unlawful-detainer action to state court); McGee v. Seagraves, No. 06-
20
CV-0495-MCE-GGH-PS, 2006 WL 2014142, at *3 (E.D. Cal. July 17, 2006) (same)
21
22
III.
CONCLUSION & ORDER
23
Because Plaintiff does not assert a claim that presents a federal question as
24
required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because it does not allege facts necessary to
25
establish diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court
26
REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter
27
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears
28
that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
–4–
16cv2670
1
The Court also TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma
2
pauperis. (ECF No. 2.)
3
In addition, the Court warns Defendant that any further attempt to
4
remove this action without an “objectively reasonable basis for removal” may
5
result in an award of attorneys’ fees for Plaintiff. See Martin v. Franklin Capital
6
Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 136 (2005); 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Wells Fargo Bank
7
Nat’l Ass’n v. Vann, No. 13-cv-01148-YGR, 2013 WL 1856711, at *2 (N.D. Cal.
8
May 2, 2013) (awarding $5,000.00 in attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)
9
following defendant’s third attempt to remove unlawful detainer action despite the
10
11
court’s two prior orders remanding the action).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
12
13
DATED: October 28, 2016
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
–5–
16cv2670
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?