(UD)(PS)Alvernaz Partners, LLC v. Pitts

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 ALVERNAZ PARTNERS, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00011-JAM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT 14 MARIA PITTS, 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] 24 On January 4, 2021, Defendant Maria Pitts filed a Notice of 25 Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from San 26 Joaquin County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. [27] For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case [28] 1 to San Joaquin 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 2. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction [20] and lack inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. [21] Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the [22] United States Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases [23] involve diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases [24] 25 in which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 26 Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 27 545 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without [28] 1 jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 . 2 Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be [3] raised by the Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape [4] Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593 , 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). [5] “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its [6] jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without [7] 8 jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003 , 1006 9 (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 apparently contains a single cause of action 26 for unlawful detainer. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly 27 within the province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to [28] 1 create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or 2 defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. [3] Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question [4] jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated [5] counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071 , 1075 [6] (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does [7] 8 not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense 9 is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the 10 plaintiff’s complaint.”). [11] In determining the presence or absence of federal [12] jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” [13] applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only [14] when a federal question is presented on the face of the [15] plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. [16] 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] 25 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 26 law.”). 27 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The [28] ee EI IR OS ES IEEE II OE I EOD OEE 1 face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 2 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 3 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a federal issue through her answer. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to San Joaquin 7 County Superior Court for all future proceedings. 8 Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, 9 is DENIED as moot. 10 | Dated: January 7, 2021 [11] Lllpoty HN A, MENDEZ, 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT