Solutions Re Inv LLC v. Allen et al

Filing 4

ORDER OF REMAND; case is sua sponte remanded to King County Superior Court; defendant's IFP is denied as moot by Judge Ricardo S Martinez. (RS) cc defendant

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9
10

Solutions Re Inv LLC, a Washington State
Limited Liability Company

11

Case No. C17-757 RSM
ORDER OF REMAND

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ROBERTA J. ALLEN, DAVID ALLEN,
AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS,

15

Defendants.

16
17

This matter comes before the Court sua sponte. On April 14, 2017, Plaintiff Solutions

18

Re Inv, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants Roberta J. Allen, David

19
20

Allen, and all other occupants in King County Superior Court for the State of Washington. Dkt.

21

#1-2. Plaintiff seeks possession of the property that Defendants allegedly will not vacate. Id.

22

On May 17, 2017, Defendant Roberta Allen removed the action to this Court on the basis of

23

federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. #1. Ms. Allen cites to a federal statute raised in her Answer.

24

Id. at 2.

25
26

An action may be removed to federal court only if it could have been originally brought

27

in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The defendant bears the burden of establishing that

28

removal is proper.” Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087

ORDER OF REMAND - 1

1

(9th Cir. 2009). Any doubt as to the right of removal is resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v.

2

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). This Court must sua sponte review all removed

3

actions to confirm that federal jurisdiction is proper. Sparta Surgical Corp. v. Nat'l Ass'n. Sec.

4

Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998) (“If a district court lacks subject matter

5
6

jurisdiction over a removed action, it has the duty to remand it . . . “). A court may raise the

7

question of subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte at any time. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.

8

3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

9
10

A defendant may remove an action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. District
courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution,

11
12

laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction “exists

13

only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded

14

complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318

15

(1987). “In determining the existence of removal jurisdiction, based upon a federal question,

16

the court must look to the complaint as of the time the removal petition was filed.” O'Halloran

17
18

v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1379 (9th Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). “A defense is not

19

part of a plaintiff's properly pleaded statement of his or her claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of

20

Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475, 118 S. Ct. 921, 139 L. Ed. 2d 912 (1998). Thus, “a case may not

21

be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr.

22
23

Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14, 103 S. Ct. 2841, 77 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1983).

24

Ms. Allen has not established that the Court has federal question jurisdiction in this case.

25

Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action based solely on state law. Plaintiff’s Complaint does

26

not present a federal question. To the extent that Ms. Allen asserts federal defenses to the

27

Plaintiff’s claims, a federal defense does not confer federal question jurisdiction on the Court.

28

ORDER OF REMAND - 2

1

See Rivet, 522 U.S. at 475. Accordingly, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction.

2

Furthermore, the Court appears to lack subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity as the

3

parties are all Washington residents. See Dkt. #1-2. The Court cannot otherwise find subject

4

matter jurisdiction based on the record.

5
6
7

Having reviewed the relevant pleading, the declarations and exhibits attached thereto,
and the remainder of the record, the Court hereby finds and ORDERS that:

8

(1) This case is sua sponte REMANDED to King County Superior Court.

9

(2) Ms. Allen’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Dkt. #2) is DENIED as moot.

10

(3) This case is CLOSED.

11
12
13

DATED this 18th day of May 2017.

14

A

15
16

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

ORDER OF REMAND - 3