IH2 Property Washington LP v. Wymore et al

Filing 12

ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND, signed by Judge Robert J. Bryan. Pltfs Motion to Remand (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED. This case is REMANDED to the Pierce County, Washington Superior Court; and Pltfs motion for an award of attorneys fees and costs (Dkt. 7) IS DENIED. (DK)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

8
9
10
11

IH2 PROPERTY WASHINGTON, LP,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15
16

CASE NO. C13-5836 RJB
ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND

v.
DOREEN C. WYMORE, and individual
GARY B. WYMORE, an individual, and
their marital community thereof,
Defendants.

17
18

This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand. Dkt. 7. The Court

19 has reviewed the relevant documents and the remainder of the file herein, and is fully advised.
20

In this motion for remand, Plaintiff, who purports to have purchased real property at issue

21 in this case at a trustee’s sale, seeks to remand this unlawful detainer action to Washington
22 Superior Court. Dkt. 7. (Although the Plaintiff’s motion requests remand to King County,
23 Washington, the property is in Pierce County, Washington and the removal was from Pierce
24 County Superior Court. The Court should construe the request to remand as one to Pierce

ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND- 1

1 County.) Defendants, the former owner of the property, assert in their Notice of Removal from
2 Pierce County Washington Superior Court, that this Court has federal question subject matter
3 jurisdiction. Dkt. 1. The motion for remand should be granted and the case remanded to Pierce
4 County Superior Court.
5
6

I.

FACTS

The following facts, based upon the submissions of the parties, are found for the purposes

7 of this motion only:
8

On or about June 13, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Forcible Detainer or Unlawful

9 Detainer against Defendants and all other occupants of the property commonly known as 720
10 189th St. Ct. E. Spanaway, Washington in Pierce County Superior Court under cause number 1311 2-12843-3. Dkts. 6 and 7-1. Defendants are alleged to be the former owners of the property. Id.
12

On September 23, 2013, Defendants removed the case to federal court on the basis of

13 federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Dkt. 1. In the Notice of Removal, the
14 Defendants state that, “the Notice to Quit upon which the civil action is based incorporates by
15 reference federal law. . . Title VII of the Emergency Economic Stabilization ‘Protecting Tenants
16 at Foreclosure Act of 2009.’” Dkt. 1, at 2.
17

Plaintiff now moves the Court for an order of remand, arguing that the Court does not

18 have subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. 7.
19
20

II.

DISCUSSION

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331: “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil

21 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” “Federal
22 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of a properly pleaded
23 complaint. The mere existence of a federal defense to a state law claim is insufficient to create
24

ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND- 2

1 federal jurisdiction over a case.” U.S. v. City of Arcata, 629 F.3d 986, 990 (9th Cir.
2 2010)(internal citations omitted). Further, to protect the jurisdiction of state courts, removal
3 jurisdiction is strictly construed in favor of remand. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425
4 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108–09
5 (1941)). Any doubt as to the right of removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Gaus v.
6 Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction
7 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Id.
8

The Motion for Remand (Dkt. 7) should be granted, and the case should be remanded to Pierce

9 County, Washington Superior Court. There is no federal question presented in the Complaint.
10 Defendant’s assertion that certain defenses may be raised pursuant to a federal statute does not
11 create federal question subject matter jurisdiction for this Court. City of Arcata, at 990. Further,
12 Defendant has not shown that this Court has diversity jurisdiction or in any other manner
13 responded to the motion. This case should be remanded to Pierce County, Washington Superior
14 Court.
15

Plaintiff further seeks an award of attorney’s fees and costs. Dkt. 7. An attorney’s fees should

16 not be awarded at this time.
17

III.

18

ORDER

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

19



Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand (Dkt. 7) is GRANTED.

20



This case is REMANDED to the Pierce County, Washington Superior Court; and

21



Plaintiff’s motion for an award of attorney’s fees and costs (Dkt. 7) IS DENIED.

22

The Clerk is directed to send uncertified copies of this Order to all counsel of record and

23 to any party appearing pro se at said party’s last known address.
24

ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND- 3

1

Dated this 31st day of October, 2013.

2
3

A

4
5

ROBERT J. BRYAN
United States District Judge

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

ORDER ON MOTION TO REMAND- 4