UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-09982-JLS-MRW Date: December 14, 2023 Title: Southland Income Properties, Inc. v. Charles Andrade, et al.

Present: Honorable JOSEPHINE L. STATON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Gabby Garcia N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:

Not Present Not Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS

ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT AND DENYING AS

MOOT DEFENDANT’S REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA

PAUPERIS

Plaintiff Southland Income Properties, Inc., filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendant Charles Andrade on September 26, 2023, in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 23STUD12666. (See Doc. 1 at 11) On November 27, 2023, Defendant removed this action. (Id. at 1.) If a federal district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must remand the case, and has the discretion to do so sua sponte. See Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n, Inc. v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). For the reasons discussed below, the Court REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

When reviewing a notice of removal, “it is to be presumed that a cause lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006)) (quotations and alterations omitted). Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” thus “the defendant always has the burden of ______________________________________________________________________________

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-09982-JLS-MRW Date: December 14, 2023 Title: Southland Income Properties, Inc. v. Charles Andrade, et al.

establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Moreover, “[o]nly state-court actions that originally could have been filed in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Defendant attaches the underlying unlawful detainer form complaint (“Complaint”) to his Notice of Removal. (Doc. 1 at 11.) The Complaint invokes neither the Court’s federal question jurisdiction nor its diversity jurisdiction.

Unlawful detainer actions such as this do not arise under federal law; thus, the Court’s federal question jurisdiction cannot be invoked. See, e.g., IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim); Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”).

Moreover, the amount in controversy necessary to invoke the Court’s diversity jurisdiction has not been met. Compare 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (conferring jurisdiction only “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs”) with Doc. 1 at 11, Compl. at 1 (specifying the amount in controversy as not exceeding $10,000).

______________________________________________________________________________

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

Case No. 2:23-cv-09982-JLS-MRW Date: December 14, 2023 Title: Southland Income Properties, Inc. v. Charles Andrade, et al.

Removal of this case is also prohibited in this case by the forum-defendant rule. Specifically, in the absence of a federal question, where the Court’s jurisdiction is premised on diversity of citizenship, a removing defendant may not be a citizen of the forum state. Here, Defendant’s address shows that he is a California citizen and is therefore clearly a forum defendant who lacks the ability to remove a state-court action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and REMANDS it to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 23STUD12666.

The pending Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Doc. 3) is DENIED as moot.

Initials of Deputy Clerk: gga

______________________________________________________________________________

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL

3