(UD)(PS) Chand v. Lacewell

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 LALESH CHAND, No. 2:24-cv-02402-DJC-SCR [12] Plaintiff, [13] v. ORDER [14] ANDREW LACEWELL, [15] Defendant. [17] 18 Plaintiff Lalesh Chand brought this unlawful detainer action against Defendant 19 Andrew Lacewell under California state law on May 29, 2024. On September 5, 2024, 20 Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, seeking to remove the action 21 from Solano County Superior Court. (See Not. of Removal from Solano Cnty. Superior 22 Ct. (“Removal Not.”) (ECF No. 1).) 23 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 24 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 25 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 26 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 , is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 27 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). 28 It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal courts, and 1 the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction. Id. 2 at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). The 3 strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that “the court resolves all 4 ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042 . That is, federal 5 jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right 6 of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 7 “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 8 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Remand under 28 9 U.S.C. § 1447 (c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251 , 10 1257 (9th Cir. 1997). 11 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the 12 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when 13 a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 14 complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting 15 Audette v. Int’l Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 195 F.3d 1107 , 1111 (9th 16 Cir. 1999)). Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily 17 appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided 18 by anything in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant 19 may interpose.” Id. (quoting Oklahoma Tax Comm'n v. Graham, 489 U.S. 838 , 841 20 (1989)). Accordingly, “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a 21 federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint and 22 both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” 23 Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987); see also Vaden v. Discover Bank, [24] 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal question lurks 25 somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim, or that a 26 defense or counterclaim would arise under federal law.”). 27 Here, Defendant seeks removal on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), arguing Plaintiff has violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 , 1 1982, and 3601. (See Removal Not. at 2-4.) However, a review of the complaint filed 2 | in state court shows that Plaintiff did not raise a federal claim in that complaint. 3 | (Removal Not. at 6-21.) Rather, Plaintiff brings a straightforward unlawful detainer 4 | action against Defendant, which is a matter purely of state law. Defendant's reliance 5 | on federal law in defending against Plaintiff's state law claim does not suffice to confer 6 | jurisdiction on this Court because the defensive invocation of federal law cannot form 7 | the basis of this Court's jurisdiction. See California, 215 F.3d at 1014 . Because there is 8 | no federal question appearing in Plaintiff's complaint, Defendant has failed to 9 | properly invoke this Court's jurisdiction. Remand to the Solano County Superior Court 10 | istherefore appropriate and mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c); see, e.g., Wells Fargo 11 Bank NA v. Zimmerman, No. 2:15-CV-08268-CAS-RWX, 2015 WL 6948576 , at *3 (C.D. 12 | Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (collecting cases in which courts remanded the matter back to 13 state court where the only claim alleged was an unlawful detainer action). 14 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Solano County Superior 15 | Court for all future proceedings. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. " Dated: _September 5, 2024 Daniel J Ch 18 Hon. Daniel A Galabretta 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [27] 28 DJC4 - Chand24cv2402.UnlawfulDetainer