CP6 Eastown LLC v. Edwin Noguera, et al.

JS-6 2 3 4 5 6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11 CP6 EASTOWN LLC, Case No. 2:25-cv-12009-CV (AGRx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v. 14 EDWIN NOGUERA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 On December 19, 2025, Defendant Edwin Noguera (“Defendant”) removed from California state court what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action filed by Plaintiff CP6 Eastown LLC. Doc. # 1 (“NOR”). Defendant asserted federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. sections 1331 and 1441. Id. at 2. “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 n.3 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG…