(UD) Rutaganira v. Mitchell ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THOMAS F. RUTAGANIRA, No. 2:20-cv-02228-JAM-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT 14 KRISTA MITCHELL, 15 Defendants. 16 17 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 18 to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 19 Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 20 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 21 retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 22 Judge.”). 23 24 On November 6, 2020, Defendant Krista Mitchell filed a 25 Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action 26 from Yolo County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. 27 For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case 28 1 to Yolo 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 8 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 9 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Generally, a 10 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 11 a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 12 initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The defendant seeking 13 removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 14 establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 15 rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 17 Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer 18 action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction. Notice of 19 Removal at 5–6. Federal courts are courts of limited 20 jurisdiction and lack inherent or general subject matter 21 jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases 22 authorized by the United States Constitution and Congress. 23 Generally, those cases involve diversity of citizenship or a 24 25 federal question, or cases in which the United States is a party. 26 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley 27 v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are 28 1 presumptively without jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 2 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never 3 waived and may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Attorneys 4 Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 5 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a 6 court than its jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests 7 8 upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 9 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988). 10 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 11 be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 12 Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 13 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 14 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 15 that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 16 17 Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 18 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 19 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 20 right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 21 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 22 In this case, Defendant is unable to establish subject 23 matter jurisdiction before this Court because the complaint filed 24 25 in the state court contains a single cause of action for unlawful 26 detainer. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the 27 province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal 28 1 subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a 2 notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 3 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest 4 upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill 5 Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law 6 defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a 7 8 federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption 9 and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 10 In determining the presence or absence of federal 11 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 12 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 13 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 14 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 15 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 16 17 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 18 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 19 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 20 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 21 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 22 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 23 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 24 25 law.”). 26 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The 27 face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 28 eee eee een ERIE IEE OS OSE I EE OEE 1 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 2 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a 3 federal issue through her answer. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to Yolo County Superior Court for all future proceedings. 7 Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 2, 8 is DENIED as moot. 9 Dated: November 9, 2020 10 Leh Zonle 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28