(UD)(PS) 1481 Exposition Boulevard, A KF LP v. Card

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — — 4 — — 5 — — 6 — — 7 — — 8 — 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 11 — 12 1481 Exposition Boulevard, A No. 2:19-cv-02523-JAM-CKD KF LP, — 13 — Plaintiff, 14 SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING v. ACTION TO STATE COURT — 15 — Darnell Card, — 16 — Defendant. — 17 — — 18 — 19 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 20 to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 21 Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 22 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 23 retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 24 Judge.”). 25 On December 17, 2019, Defendant Darnell Card filed a Notice 26 of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from the 27 Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. 28 For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case 1 to Sacramento County Superior Court. 2 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), a defendant may remove an action 3 to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 4 Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 5 (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 6 Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 7 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 8 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Generally, a 9 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 10 a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 11 initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). The defendant seeking 12 removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 13 establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 14 rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 15 Here, Defendant attempts to invoke the Court’s federal 16 question jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 1-2. Defendant 17 argues that this Court has jurisdiction because federal law, the 18 Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act 2009, preempts state law 19 and precludes Plaintiff from evicting him. Id. at 2-4. Federal 20 courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or 21 general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can 22 adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 23 Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve 24 diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which 25 the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 26 Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 27 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction 28 over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 . Lack of subject 1 matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the 2 Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., 3 Inc., 93 F.3d 593 , 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be 4 more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. 5 Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction 6 it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003 , 1006 (9th Cir. 7 1988). 8 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 9 be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 10 Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 11 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 12 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 13 that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 14 Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 15 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 16 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 17 right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 18 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 In determining the presence or absence of federal 20 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 21 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 22 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 23 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 24 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 25 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 26 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 27 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 28 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 1 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 2 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 3 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 4 law.”). 5 In this case, Defendant is unable to establish jurisdiction 6 before this Court because the complaint filed in the state court, 7 19-UD-05726, contains a single cause of action for unlawful 8 detainer. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the 9 province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal 10 subject-matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a 11 notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 12 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest 13 upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill 14 Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law 15 defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a 16 federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption 17 and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). As such, 18 Defendant’s attempt to assert the Protecting Tenants at 19 Foreclosure Act as a preemption defense to Plaintiff’s unlawful 20 detainer action does not give rise to federal question 21 jurisdiction here. 22 The Court REMANDS this case to Sacramento County Superior 23 Court for all future proceedings. Defendant’s motion to proceed 24 in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, is DENIED as moot. The Clerk of 25 the Court is directed to close this case. 26 Dated: December 18, 2019 John A. Mendez____________________ 27 United States District Court Judge — 28 —