(UD) (PS) Overlook at Blue Ravine LLC v. Dupuis ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Overlook at Blue Ravine LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00633-KJM-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Peter Dupuis, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Peter Dupuis, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from 18 | the Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Dupuis also filed a 19 | motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot., ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the court 20 | remands the matter to state court and denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 21 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is 22 | iitially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 23 | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 24 | jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 25 Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions 26 | arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under 27 | the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the 28 | plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 1 | Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction 2 | cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 3 | 556 USS. 49, 60 (2009). 4 Depuis’s notice of removal asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 5 | “because Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend on the determination of Defendant’s rights 6 | and Plaintiffs duties under federal law.” Notice of Removal § 10. However, Depuis’s answer or 7 | counterclaim cannot serve as a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. 8 | Additionally, plaintiff's complaint filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, 9 | which is a matter of state law. See id. § 7; see also State Ct. Compl., Notice of Removal Ex. A. 10 | Because plaintiffs complaint does not show that it is based upon federal law, the court does not 11 | have federal question jurisdiction over the action. See Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 12 | 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[Plaintiff] may generally avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely 13 | state-law claims.”). Accordingly, the case must be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (Tf at 14 | any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 15 | the case shall be remanded.”). 16 Thus, the court remands this matter to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 17 | Depuis’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. 18 This order resolves ECF No. 2. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 DATED: April 10, 2023. 21 l ti / ¢ is 23 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45