Case 2:23-cv-00150-JFW-MAA Document 7 Filed 01/12/23 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL

Case No. CV 23-00150-JFW(MAAx) Date: January 12, 2023 Title: Unified Property Management Inc. -v- Luther Leberry

PRESENT:

HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

None None

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES

SUPERIOR COURT

On approximately September 2, 2022, Plaintiff United Property Management Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendant Luther Leberry (“Defendant”) in Los Angeles Superior Court. On January 10, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendant fails to meet his burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendant alleges in his Notice of Removal that the “complaint presents federal questions” (Notice of Removal, 2:10-11), “[a]n unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of jurisdiction." Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank , 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff's Complaint. Page 1 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr Case 2:23-cv-00150-JFW-MAA Document 7 Filed 01/12/23 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:23

Moreover, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that no diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. §1332. The amount demanded on the face of the Complaint is alleged not to exceed $10,000 – well below the statutory threshold of $75,000.00. For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 2 of 2 Initials of Deputy Clerk sr