(PS)(UD)Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation v. McMahon ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Federal Home Loan Mortgage No. 2:19-cv-2438-JAM-AC-PS Corporation, its assignees 12 and/or successors, 13 Plaintiff, SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT 14 v. 15 Ronald A. McMahon, Staci McMahon, and Does 1-10, 16 inclusive, 17 Defendants. 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 5, 2019, Defendants Ronald and Staci McMahon 26 filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an 27 action from Shasta County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF 28 No. 1. For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS 1 this case 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). A 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 Defendants are attempting to remove an unlawful detainer 16 action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. They contend this Court has 17 federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s complaint 18 “expressly references and incorporates” the Protecting Tenants at 19 Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5201. Notice of Removal at 2-3. 20 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack 21 inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 22 can 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 this case, Defendants are unable to establish subject 20 matter jurisdiction before this Court because the complaint filed 21 in the state court contains a single cause of action for unlawful 22 detainer based on California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.45. 23 Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of 24 state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal subject 25 matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of 26 removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 27 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an 28 actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 1 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a 2 state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, 3 even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is 4 anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 5 In determining the presence or absence of federal 6 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 7 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 8 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 9 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 10 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 11 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 12 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 13 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 14 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 15 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 16 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 17 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 18 law.”). 19 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The 20 face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 21 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 22 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendants cannot inject a 23 federal issue through their answer or demurrer. 24 Accordingly, 25 1. This action is remanded forthwith to the Shasta County 26 Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 27 and 28 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: December 6, 2019 3 /s/ John A. Mendez________________ 4 United States District Court Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28