Fenton Mission Valley, LLC v. Miranda et al

Filing 6

ORDER Sua Sponte Remanding Case and Dismissing Motions to Proceed In Forma Pauperis [ECF No. 1 , 3 - 5 ]. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 8/7/2017. (Certified Copy sent to Superior Court) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(jjg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

FENTON MISSION VALLEY, LLC,

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB

Plaintiff,

11
12
13

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT AND
DISMISSING MOTIONS TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS MOOT

v.
MIRANDA et al.,

14

Defendants.

15

[ECF No. 1, 3-5]

16
17
18
19

On August 4, 2017, Defendants Andres Miranda, Suzette Martinez, and Naomi

20

Ramos (“Defendants”), proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal of this unlawful

21

detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County.

22

Based on the reasoning below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to state court

23

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

24

DISCUSSION

25

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins.

26

Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this

27

limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party

28

asserting jurisdiction.” Id. It is well-established that a federal court cannot reach the
1
3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB

1

merits of any dispute until it confirms that it retains subject matter jurisdiction to

2

adjudicate the issues presented. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 523 U.S. 83,

3

94-95 (1988). Accordingly, federal courts are under a continuing duty to confirm their

4

jurisdictional power and are “obliged to inquire sua sponte whenever a doubt arises as to

5

[its] existence . . . .” Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274,

6

278 (1977) (citations omitted).

7

Federal subject matter jurisdiction may be based on (1) federal question

8

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331; and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

9

§ 1332. Here, Defendants assert federal question jurisdiction. See Notice of Removal

10

(“NTR”), Dkt. No. 1 at 2. For an action to be removed on the basis of federal question

11

jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal law creates the cause of

12

action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of

13

substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers

14

Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983). The presence or absence of federal

15

question jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides

16

that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of

17

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

18

(1987). It is well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of

19

a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and

20

even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.”

21

Id. at 393.

22

A review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff Fenton

23

Mission Valley, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer

24

under California state law. Dkt. No. 1-2 at 2-5. In the notice of removal, Defendants

25

argue that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the complaint for the

26

following reasons: (1) the unlawful detainer complaint is subject to strict notice

27

requirements; (2) Defendants filed a demurrer to the complaint based on a

28

“3-Day Notice” that failed to comply with Section 1161(2) of the Code of Civil
2
3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB

1

Procedure; and (3) Defendant’s demurrer is a pleading that depends on the

2

“determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal.” NTR, Dkt.

3

No. 1 at 2.

4

Defendants’ argument fails for two independent reasons. First, the notice

5

requirements referenced in Defendants’ demurrer arise under state, not federal, law. The

6

Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2) is not a federal law. It is a California law that defines

7

and explains what is required to bring an unlawful detainer action. See California Code

8

of Civil Procedure § 1161. Accordingly, Defendants have failed to identify a federal law

9

that could form the basis of Defendants’ removal to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

10

and 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Second, even if Defendants had properly argued that Plaintiff

11

violated a federal law, it would not matter because the presence or absence of federal

12

question jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides

13

that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of

14

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392

15

(1987). Accordingly, Defendants’ assertion of federal subject matter jurisdiction is

16

without merit and Plaintiff’s state law unlawful detainer claim is not removable.

17
18

CONCLUSION
Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the Superior

19

Court of the State of California for San Diego County. Defendants’ pending motions for

20

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, therefore, are denied as moot.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
23

Dated: August 7, 2017

24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-01566-GPC-JLB