West Coast Servicing Inc. v. Almeta Powell

O [1] JS-6 [7] 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California [10] 11 WEST COAST SERVICING, INC., Case № 2:20-CV-01477-ODW (GJSx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE TO 13 v. 14 A LMETA POWELL, et al., STATE COURT Defendants. [16] 17 The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court 18 for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth 19 below.1 20 “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in 21 a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of 22 Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting 23 Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress 24 has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against 25 removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 26 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). [27] 1 After carefully considering the Notice of Removal, the Court deems the matter appropriate for sua 28 sponte decision. United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 1 Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove 2 “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United 3 States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 4 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing 5 federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 6 2006); Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566-67 . “Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in order 7 properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [the removing defendant] 8 must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal courts.” 9 Syngenta Crop Prot., 537 U.S. at 33 . Failure to do so requires that the case be 10 remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and . . . the district 11 court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. 12 Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003). “If at any time before final 13 judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 14 shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). It is “elementary that the subject matter 15 jurisdiction of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be raised at anytime 16 by one of the parties, by motion or in the responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the 17 trial or reviewing court.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190 , 1194 n.2 (9th 18 Cir. 1988). 19 From a review of the Notice of Removal and the state court records provided, it 20 is evident that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant case, for the 21 following reasons. 22 A. No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified. 23 The Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, 24 laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331 . 25 Removing defendant(s) asserts that the affirmative defenses at issue give rise to 26 federal question jurisdiction, but “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely 27 on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” 28 ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). An “affirmative defense based on federal law” does not 2 “render[] an action brought in state court removable.” Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422 , 3 426 (9th Cir. 1994). A “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a 4 federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and 5 even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the 6 case.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). 7 Removing defendant(s) has not alleged facts sufficient to show that the 8 requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 are satisfied. Section 1443(1) 9 provides for the removal of a civil action filed “[a]gainst any person who is denied or 10 cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal 11 civil rights of citizens of the United States . . . .” Even assuming that the removing 12 defendant(s) has asserted rights provided “by explicit statutory enactment protecting 13 equal racial civil rights,” Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) 14 (citation omitted), defendant(s) has not identified any “state statute or a constitutional 15 provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights” or 16 pointed “to anything that suggests that the state court would not enforce [defendant’s] 17 civil rights in the state court proceedings.” Id. (citation omitted); see also Bogart v. 18 California, 355 F.2d 377 , 381–82 (9th Cir. 1966) (holding that conclusionary 19 statements lacking any factual basis cannot support removal under § 1443(1)). Nor 20 does § 1443(2) provide any basis for removal, as it “confers a privilege of removal 21 only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in 22 affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights” 23 and on state officers who refuse to enforce discriminatory state laws. City of 24 Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 , 824 & 824 n.22 (1966). 25 The underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and 26 governed by the laws of the State of California. [28] 1] B. Diversity jurisdiction is lacking, and this case is not removable on that 2 basis. 3 Every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. 4} § 1332(a). 5 The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited civil action that does not 6 || exceed $25,000. 7 Removing defendant(s) is a citizen of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (b)(2). 8] C. Conclusion. 9 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter 10 || be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, Case 11 || No. 19STUD10969, Los Angeles County Superior Court, 111 North Hill Street, Los 12 | Angeles, CA 90012, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. [13] 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. [15] 16 March 2, 2020 \ 17 VEE yl 4 18 YjtEW | a 19 OTIS D. GHT, II UNITED STATES,DISTRICT JUDGE