(UD)(PS) Hoffman v. Lyles ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Cody Robert Hoffman, No. 2:22-cv-00104-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Latanya Taylor Lyles, et. al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Defendants Latanya Taylor Lyles and Lazaro Guerrera, who appear pro se, removed this 18 | unlawful detainer action from San Joaquin Superior Court. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. 19 | Defendants have also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. See Mot., ECF Nos. 2,3. The court 20 | has reviewed the complaint and notice of removal and has determined on its own motion that it 21 | lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is thus remanded to the state court. 22 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is 23 | initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 24 | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction. First, under § 1331, district 25 | courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, 26 | laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, under § 1332, district courts 27 | have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and 28 | the parties are completely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. ] Here, the parties are not diverse, and the complaint includes no claims arising under 2 | federal law. See generally Compl., Notice of Removal Ex. A, ECF No. 1. Defendants argue this 3 | court has federal question jurisdiction “because Defendant’s Answer . . . depend[s] on the 4 | determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff's duties under federal law.” Jd. § 10. Federal 5 | question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. 6 | Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 7 A federal district court may remand a case on its own motion where a defendant has not 8 | established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 9 | 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 10 | This action is thus remanded to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. 11 The motions to proceed in forma pauperis are denied as moot. 12 The Clerk’s Office is directed to close this case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 DATED: January 26, 2022. 15 ee CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45