Camran Shafighi v. David Dadon

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] 11 CAMRAN SHAFIGHI, Case No. CV 21-04930-GW (RAOx) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v. AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 14 DAVID DADON, et al., WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 15 Defendants. [17] I. [18] FACTUAL BACKGROUND [19] In April 2020, Plaintiff Camran Shafighi filed an unlawful detainer action in [20] Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants David Dadon and DOES 121 10. Decl. of Louis V. Kosnett, Ex. A (“Complaint”), Dkt. No. 6-1. Defendants are [22] allegedly occupants of real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Van Nuys, [23] California. Compl. ¶¶ 3, 4. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have failed to comply [24] after being served a notice to perform covenants or quit and seeks costs and damages. [25] Id. ¶¶ 7, 10, 13, 17. [26] Defendant David Dadon (hereinafter, “Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal [27] on June 17, 2021, invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Notice of [28] 1 Removal (“Removal”), Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Defendant also filed an application to 2 proceed in district court without prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 3. 3 II. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 6 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 7 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 , 114 S. Ct. 1673 , 128 L. Ed. 8 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 9 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 , 126 S. Ct. 1235 , 163 L. 10 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 11 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 12 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 13 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 14 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 15 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 16 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 17 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 18 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 19 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to [20] 28 U.S.C. § 1441 . Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that a 21 defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 22 federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a). 23 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 24 clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 25 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 . “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction 26 is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 27 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 28 plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 , 1 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429 , 96 L. Ed.2d 318 (1987). Here, there is no federal question 2 apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple 3 unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 104 8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578 , at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful 5 detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac 6 Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 7 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack 8 of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful 9 detainer claim). 10 There is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction 11 exists based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 . See Removal at 2. It is well settled that a “case 12 may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the 13 defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties concede 14 that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 15 393. To the extent Defendant is raising a defense to the unlawful detainer action 16 based on 42 U.S.C. § 1981 , that defense does not provide a basis for federal question 17 jurisdiction. The Court also observes that instead of attaching the underlying 18 unlawful detainer complaint in state court to his Notice of Removal, Defendant 19 attaches a federal civil complaint he filed in this district in a different matter, CV 2120 4681-JAK. See Dkt. No. 1-1. To the extent Defendant is relying on the claims pled 21 in the attached complaint as defenses to the unlawful detainer action, these defenses 22 also do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction.1 23 Although “a claim that seemingly rests solely on state law may nonetheless be 24 removable” where federal law is found to have preempted state law, see Galvez v. 25 Kuhn, 933 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 1991), there is no basis for finding preemption in 26 the instant case. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present a federal question, [27] 1 Case No. CV 21-4681 has since been dismissed. See ECF No. 5, David Dadon v. 28 Camran Shafighi et al., Case No. CV 21-4681-JAK-ASx (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2021). 1 || either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 21 § 1441. 3 TIL. 4 CONCLUSION 5 Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 6 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in 8 || district court without prepaying fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. [10] 11 |} DATED: June 28, 2021 “fg Bi te 13 GEORGEH, WU 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE