JS6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 5:20-cv-02013-RGK-JPR Date October 6, 2020 Title COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. DUNG T. LAM, et al

Present: The Honorable R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE Joseph Remigio (Not Present) Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO

SUPERIOR COURT

On September 29, 2020, Defendant Dung T. Lam (“Defendant”) removed this action from state court, asserting federal subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question. Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N_A., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court.”). Upon review of the Complaint, the Court finds no federal question therein. Plaintiffs Complaint seeks a TRO and Injunctive Relief for Abatement of Nuisance for Illegal Land Use in Violation of Riverside County Ordinance. The Complaint does not set forth any claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States for which the Court would have “original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant states that the basis for removal is that her cross-complaint seeks Declaratory Relief that the claims stated in the underlying complaint violate the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and her due process rights. However, Defendant cannot confer jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to her Notice of Removal or asserting an affirmative defense or counterclaim under federal law. Accordingly, Defendant’s removal is improper for lack of federal question jurisdiction.

JS6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No. 5:20-cv-02013-RGK-JPR Date October 6, 2020 Title COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE v. DUNG T. LAM, et al For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court, County of Riverside, Case No. MCC2001735, for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of Preparer jre