(UD) Rutaganira v. Mitchell

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 THOMAS F. RUTAGANIRA, No. 2:20-cv-02228-JAM-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT 14 KRISTA MITCHELL, 15 Defendants. [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] 24 On November 6, 2020, Defendant Krista Mitchell filed a 25 Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action 26 from Yolo County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. [27] For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case [28] 1 to Yolo 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] 8 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 9 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Generally, a 10 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file [11] a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the [12] initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). The defendant seeking [13] removal of an action to federal court has the burden of [14] establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex [15] rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). [16] 17 Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer 18 action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction. Notice of 19 Removal at 5–6. Federal courts are courts of limited [20] jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter [21] jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases [22] authorized by the United States Constitution and Congress. [23] Generally, those cases involve diversity of citizenship or a [24] 25 federal question, or cases in which the United States is a party. 26 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley 27 v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are [28] 1 presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, [2] 511 U.S. at 377 . Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never [3] waived and may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Attorneys [4] Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593 , 594-95 [5] (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a [6] court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests [7] 8 upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 9 F.2d 1003 , 1006 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should [11] be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. [12] Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. [13] 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction [14] means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing [15] that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & [16] 17 Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 18 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 19 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the [20] right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 21 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). [22] In this case, Defendant is unable to establish subject [23] matter jurisdiction before this Court because the complaint filed [24] 25 in the state court contains a single cause of action for unlawful 26 detainer. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the 27 province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal [28] 1 subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a 2 notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 3 U.S. 49 , 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest [4] upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill [5] Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law [6] defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a [7] 8 federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption 9 and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 10 In determining the presence or absence of federal [11] jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” [12] applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only [13] when a federal question is presented on the face of the [14] plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 15 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well [16] 17 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 18 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 19 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. [20] Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. [21] First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law [22] that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the [23] plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal [24] 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] eee eee een ERIE IEE OS OSE I EE OEE 1 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 2 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a 3 federal issue through her answer. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to Yolo County Superior Court for all future proceedings. 7 Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, 8 is DENIED as moot. 9 Dated: November 9, 2020 [10] Leh Zonle 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT