Rowland Heights Mobile Estates v. Diana Xuemei Cheung

I. DISCUSSION

Removal jurisdiction is based entirely on federal statutory authority. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-55. A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts . . . have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Whether a claim “arises under” federal law must be determined by reference to the “well-pleaded complaint.” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk VPC

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983). It is not enough for removal purposes that a federal question may arise during the litigation in connection with a defense or counterclaim. Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a single cause of action for unlawful detainer under Cal. Civ. Code § 798.56. (See generally Compl.) A single claim for unlawful detainer is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Wachovia Mortg., FSB v. Rabb, No.…