(UD)(PS) Coastline Capital Fund III, LLC v. Schroeder ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COASTLINE CAPITAL FUND III, No. 2:20-cv-02111-JAM-CKD LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING v. ACTION TO STATE COURT 14 RITA A. SCHROEDER and JOSEPH 15 FRANK PAUL RAMOS, 16 Defendants. 17 18 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 19 to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 20 Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 21 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 22 retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 23 Judge.”). 24 25 On October 22, 2020, Defendant Rita A. Schroeder filed a 26 Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action 27 from the Superior Court for the County of Sacramento. Notice of 28 1 Removal, ECF No. 1. For the following reasons, the Court sua 2 sponte REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California for 3 the County of Sacramento. 4 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action 5 to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 6 Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 7 8 (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 9 Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 10 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 11 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, a 12 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 13 a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 14 initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The defendant seeking 15 removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 16 17 establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 18 rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 19 Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer 20 action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction. Notice of 21 Removal at 2–4. Federal courts are courts of limited 22 jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter 23 jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases 24 25 authorized by the United States Constitution and Congress. 26 Generally, those cases involve diversity of citizenship or a 27 federal question, or cases in which the United States is a party. 28 1 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley 2 v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are 3 presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 4 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never 5 waived and may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Attorneys 6 Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 7 8 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a 9 court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests 10 upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 11 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988). 12 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 13 be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 14 Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 15 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 16 17 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 18 that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 19 Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 20 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 21 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 22 right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 23 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 24 25 In this case, Defendant is unable to establish subject 26 matter jurisdiction before this Court because the complaint filed 27 in the state court apparently contains a single cause of action 28 1 for unlawful detainer based on California Code of Civil Procedure 2 section 1161(a) and (b). Unlawful detainer actions are strictly 3 within the province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to 4 create federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or 5 defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. 6 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question 7 8 jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated 9 counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 10 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does 11 not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense 12 is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the 13 plaintiff’s complaint.”). 14 In determining the presence or absence of federal 15 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 16 17 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 18 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 19 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 20 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 21 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 22 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 23 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 24 25 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 26 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 27 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 28 eee eee I OO IE IERIE IID EE ISN ED OEE 1 | plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 2 law.”). 3 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The 4 face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 5 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 6 7 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a 8 federal issue through his answer. 9 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior 10 Court for the County of Sacramento for all future proceedings. 11 Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, 12 1s DENIED as moot. 13 Dated: October 26, 2020 14 15 Me 16 HN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28