O 1

JS-6

2 3 4 5 6 7 United States District Court 8 Central District of California 9 10 11 939 LOFTS Case № 2:19-cv-9252-ODW-(MRWx) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 14 Caroline Simmons, REMAND [6]; DENYING 15 Defendant. APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION 16 FOR ELECTRONIC FILING [3] 17 18 I. INTRODUCTION 19 On October 28, 2019 Defendant Caroline Simmons removed this action to 20 federal court based on federal question jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1.) 21 After reviewing Defendant’s Notice of Removal and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand 22 (ECF No. 6), it is clear that no federal question jurisdiction exists, and therefore this 23 Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court REMANDS this 24 unlawful detainer action to state court because Defendants improperly removed it to 25 federal court. Additionally, because this unlawful detainer action is being remanded, 26 this Court DENIES Defendant Caroline Simmons’s Application for Permission for 27 Electronic Filing (ECF No. 3) as MOOT. 28 1 II. LEGAL STANDARD 2 Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by the 3 Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; see also Kokkonen v. 4 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court 5 may be removed to federal court only if the federal court would have had original 6 jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have original 7 jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law or where each plaintiff’s 8 citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s citizenship and the amount in controversy 9 exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332(a). 10 The removal statute is strictly construed against removal, and “[f]ederal 11 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 12 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking 13 removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed 14 Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). The Court may remand the action 15 “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 16 matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v. 17 Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 19 III. DISCUSSION 20 On October 29, 2019, Defendant, having been sued in what appears to be a 21 routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, lodged a Notice of Removal 22 of that action to this Court. (Notice of Removal.) 23 Simply stated, this action could not have been originally filed in federal court 24 because the complaint does not competently allege facts supporting either diversity or 25 federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), 26 see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005). 27 Defendant’s Notice of Removal only asserts that removal is proper based upon federal 28 1 question jurisdiction. However, the underlying unlawful detainer action does not raise 2 any federal legal question. 3 “[T]he presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 4 well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when 5 a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 6 complaint.” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 7 1091 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 8 (1998) (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint prays for relief for 9 unlawful detainer solely based on California’s unlawful detainer laws. (Notice of 10 Removal, Ex. 1 (Verified Complaint), ECF No. 1.) Because a claim for unlawful 11 detainer does not by itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the 12 construction of federal law, no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the 13 face of the Complaint.1 Defendant’s only means of asserting federal law are through 14 federal defenses, which are not considered when evaluating jurisdiction. Valles v. Ivy 15 Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law 16 claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of 17 federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 18 / / / 19 / / / 20 / / / 21 / / / 22 / / / 23 / / / 24 25 26

1 See, e.g., U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n v. Tyler, No. C 10-4033 PJH, 2010 WL 4918790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. 27 Nov. 12, 2010) (holding that a single claim for unlawful detainer under state law did not provide a 28 basis for federal question jurisdiction); IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337 PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (same). 1 For the reasons discussed above, the Court REMANDS the action to Superior 2 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 111 North Hill Street, Los Angeles CA 3 || 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 4|| Defendant Caroline Simmons’s Application for Permission for Electronic Filing is 5 || DENIED as moot. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 November 1, 2019 9 i 4

11 OTIS D. WRIGHT, II b UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28