1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) Case No.: SACV 23-01809-CJC (ADSx)

RP ESSEX SKYLINE HOLDINGS, )

13 )

LCC, )

14 ) ) 15 Plaintiff, ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ) CASE TO SUPERIOR COURT OF 16 v. ) CALIFORNIA FOR LACK OF ) SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 17 )

PATRICK GILMORE; DOES 1–10, )

18 ) ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 23 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 24 25 Harriette Albert, acting pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action that Plaintiff 26 RP Essex Skyline Holdings, LCC originally filed in Orange County Superior Court. 27 (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter “Notice”]). Albert asserts “this court has 1 argues that removal is appropriate because “defendant will not be able to receive a fair 2 hearing or trial in the state Superior Court for Orange County [which] will ignore any 3 evidence if there is a trustee’s deed upon [sale], whether valid or invalid, denying 4 defendant an opportunity to be heard[,]” (Notice ¶ 11). Albert also asserts that the case 5 involves “a federally related mortgage.” However, Albert has not explained why these 6 facts give rise to federal subject matter jurisdiction. 7 8 II. LEGAL STANDARD 9 10 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 11 if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1441(b). A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve 13 questions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. An action arises under federal 14 law if federal law creates the cause of action or if the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily 15 depends on the resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Grable & Sons Metal 16 Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 245 U.S. 308, 314 (2005). Federal question 17 jurisdiction will lie over state law claims that “really and substantially” involve a dispute 18 or controversy respecting the validity, construction, or effect of federal law. Id. 19 20 Principles of federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously 21 confine their [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” 22 See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). Indeed, 23 “[n]othing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United 24 States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). 25 The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that 26 the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is 27 strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 1 of removal in the first instance.”). Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject 2 matter jurisdiction whether or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life 3 Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court's 4 duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ 5 arguments.”). Whether subject matter jurisdiction exists may be raised by the Court sua 6 sponte at any time, and if it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 7 at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, the case must be remanded to state court. 8 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time 9 that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). 10 11 III. DISCUSSION 12 13 As a threshold matter, as far as the Court can tell, Albert is not a defendant in this 14 action, and Albert does not identify her connection to the subject property. (See 15 generally Notice). Rather, Plaintiff’s Complaint is against Patrick Gilmore, who 16 presumably leases the subject property, and a number of Doe defendants. (See Notice 17 Ex. 1.) Albert provides no indication that she has sought to intervene or otherwise 18 become a party to the case. “A non-party lacks standing to invoke a district court's 19 removal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446.” See Wells Fargo Bank, N.A v. 20 Alvarado, 2014 WL 5786555, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2014). If Albert is not a 21 defendant, then removal is improper, and the action must be remanded. See id. at *2 22 (“Defendants are the only parties who are statutorily permitted to remove cases from state 23 to federal courts.”). 24 25 Similarly, Albert provides no indication that Defendant Patrick Gilmore joined in 26 removal. Without the consent of all defendants who have been properly joined and 27 served, the action must be remanded. See Force v. Advanced Structural Techs., Inc., 1 2020 WL 4539026, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020) (“[A]ll properly named and served 2 defendants must join a removal petition for the petition to be valid.”). 3 4 Even if Albert were a proper party to remove the case and did so with the other 5 defendants’ consent, removal would be improper. Albert does not assert that there is any 6 federal-question basis for jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s Complaint, which states a single 7 claim for unlawful detainer under California law, does not raise a federal question. (Dkt. 8 1 Ex. 1.) 9 10 Diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. Although Albert asserts that removal is 11 based on 28 U.S.C. § 1332, (Notice ¶ 5), her civil cover sheet does not indicate that there 12 is diversity jurisdiction, (Dkt 1-1 at 1). Diversity jurisdiction exists only “where the 13 matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 14 costs[,]” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and that requirement has not been met because the 15 complaint demands less than $25,000 in damages. (Dkt. 1 Ex. 1.) 16 17 Albert also does not assert any basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343. “The 18 express language of § 1343(a)(1) and (2) provides for federal court jurisdiction over suits 19 alleging conspiracies to deprive individuals of civil rights under § 1985, and § 1343(a)(3) 20 is considered the jurisdictional counterpart to § 1983. … Section 1343 affords federal 21 jurisdiction only to those Acts of Congress providing equal rights or civil rights, 22 however, and federal courts do not have jurisdiction … over actions based on violations 23 of federal statutes that do not provide for equal rights and were not enacted for the 24 protection of civil rights.” Subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1343, 2 Civ. 25 Actions Against State & Loc. Gov't § 12:2. The Court identifies nothing indicating that 26 jurisdiction under § 1343 would be proper. 27 1 indicating that jurisdiction is based on the U.S. government being a defendant. (Dkt. 2 || 1-1 at 1.) However, on the next page she contradictorily answers “no” to the question: 3 ||“‘Is the United States, or one of its agencies or employees, a DEFENDANT in this 4 |l}action?” (Dkt. 1-1 at 2.) As far as the Court can tell, there is no basis for subject matter 5 || jurisdiction—even if Albert as a nonparty had the capacity to unilaterally remove the case 6 Orange County Superior Court. 7 8 CONCLUSION 9 10 For the foregoing reasons, this action is hereby REMANDED to Orange County 11 || Superior Court. The pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (Dkt. 2), is DENIED 12 |} AS MOOT. 13 14 DATED: October 4, 2023 Ko fr 15 ff OT 16 CORMAC J. CARNEY 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28