(UD)(PS) Li v. Duncan

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 SAMUEL LI, No. 2:19-cv-2278-JAM-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT 14 THERESA M DUNCAN, 15 Defendant. [16] 17 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 18 to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 19 Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 20 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 21 retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 22 Judge.”). 23 On November 8, 2019, Defendant Theresa Duncan filed a Notice 24 of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from San 25 Joaquin County Superior Court. See Case No. 2:19-cv-2256. The 26 Court sua sponte remanded the case to San Joaquin County Superior 27 Court because it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. On 28 November 12, 2019, Duncan filed a new, but nearly identical, 1 Notice of Removal with this Court. ECF No. 1. For the following 2 reasons—the same reasons previously set forth—the Court sua 3 sponte REMANDS this case to San Joaquin County Superior Court. 4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), a defendant may remove an action 5 to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 6 Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 7 (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 8 Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 9 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 10 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Generally, a 11 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 12 a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 13 initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). A defendant seeking 14 removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 15 establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 16 rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack 18 inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 19 can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 20 Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve 21 diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which 22 the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 23 Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 24 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction 25 over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 . Lack of subject 26 matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the 27 Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., 28 Inc., 93 F.3d 593 , 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be 1 more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. 2 Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction 3 it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003 , 1006 (9th Cir. 4 1988). 5 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 6 be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 7 Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 8 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 9 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 10 that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 11 Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 12 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 13 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 14 right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 15 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 Defendant attempts to remove an unlawful detainer action 17 based on federal subject matter jurisdiction. She appears to 18 argue two bases of federal jurisdiction: (1) 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1442(a)(1); and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . Notice of Removal at 2. 20 Defendant first argues “[r]emoval [is] jurisdictionally proper 21 under 28 U.S.C. § 1442 (a)(1), because Federal Defendant U.S. 22 Election Assistance Commission is an agency of[]the United 23 States.” Id. However, Plaintiff did not name the Election 24 Assistance Commission as a defendant in his unlawful detainer 25 action, so this argument is unavailing. 26 Moreover, Defendant failed to show Plaintiff’s unlawful 27 detainer action arises under federal law. The complaint filed in 28 state court contains a single cause of action for unlawful 1 detainer based on California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a. 2 Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of 3 state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal subject 4 matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of 5 removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 , 6 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an 7 actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., [8] 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a 9 state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, 10 even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is 11 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 12 In determining the presence or absence of federal 13 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 14 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 15 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 16 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 17 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 18 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 19 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 20 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 21 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 22 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 23 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 24 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 25 law.”). 26 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The 27 face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 28 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 1 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a 2 federal issue through her answer or demurrer. 3 Accordingly, 4 1. This action is remanded forthwith to the San Joaquin 5 County Superior Court for lack of subject matter 6 jurisdiction; 7 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 Dated: November 12, 2019 10 John A. Mendez____________________ 11 United States District Court Judge