Case 2:22-cv-08729-SPG-RAO Document 9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:47

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 Case No. 2:22-cv-08729-SPG-RAO 11 PETER ACKERMANN,

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND

DENYING APPLICATION TO

13 v. PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT

14 WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR GENE SHIVELY; and DOES 1 through COSTS 15 10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for 20 the County of Ventura for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below. 21 I. BACKGROUND 22 On September 21, 2022, Plaintiff Peter Ackermann, (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 23 detainer action in Ventura County Superior Court against Defendant Gene Shively 24 (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1 at 6). Plaintiff asserts that Defendant failed to pay rent and 25 failed to vacate the property after proper notice. (Id. at 7–8). 26 On December 1, 2022, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, invoking the Court’s 27 federal question jurisdiction. (Id. at 2–3). Defendant also filed an Application to Proceed 28 in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. (ECF No. 3). -1- Case 2:22-cv-08729-SPG-RAO Document 9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:48

1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, with subject matter jurisdiction only 3 over matters authorized by the Constitution and statutes. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian 4 Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The Court has a duty to examine its own subject 5 matter jurisdiction. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). If it finds an 6 obvious jurisdictional issue, the Court may summarily remand a case. See Scholastic 7 Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., 366 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled 8 to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on 9 the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) 10 (omitting internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to 11 federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 12 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, there is a “strong presumption” against removal 13 jurisdiction. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 14 III. DISCUSSION 15 Defendant asserts this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 16 §§ 1331 and 1441 (“Section 1331” and “Section 1441” respectively). (ECF No. 1 at 2). 17 Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove a civil action to 18 federal court when the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 19 Section 1331 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil 20 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1331. However, original federal jurisdiction “exists only when a federal question is 22 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 23 Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 392 (1987). A case may not be removed based on a federal defense 24 or counterclaim. See id. at 393; Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 59 (2009) (finding 25 federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim). 26 Here, the Court finds the Defendant’s invocation of federal question jurisdiction 27 unpersuasive. Defendant bases her removal on a federal question presented by her Answer. 28 See (ECF No. 1 at 2). However, the underlying Complaint in this action appears to allege -2- Case 2:22-cv-08729-SPG-RAO Document 9 Filed 12/12/22 Page 3 of 3 Page ID #:49

1 only simple unlawful detainer, which does not arise under federal law. (ECF No. 1 at 5– 2 8); See Marina Admiralty Company v. Seager, No. 2:22-cv-1007-AB (MARx), 2022 WL 3 575965, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2022) (remanding an action to state court for lack of 4 subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer 5 claim); see also Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 6 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise 7 under federal law.”) (citation omitted). Therefore, because Plaintiff’s Complaint does not 8 present a federal question, the Court lacks jurisdiction under Section 1331. 9 IV. CONCLUSION 10 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court 11 of California, County of Ventura, forthwith. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Application to Proceed Without 13 Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. 14 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 17 DATED: December 12, 2022 18 HON. SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3-