(UD)(PS) Community Fund LLC v. Lafountain ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COMMUNITY FUND, LLC, No. 2:23-cv-00634-DJC-DB 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JEFF LAFOUNTAIN, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by plaintiff 18 Community Fund, LLC against defendant Jeff Lafountain. It was originally filed Solano 19 County Superior Court. On Wednesday, April 5, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of 20 Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from Solano County Superior 21 Court. (Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1).) 22 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 23 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 24 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 25 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 26 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); 27 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 28 2009). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal 1 courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 2 jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris 3 USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal 4 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated 5 defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. 6 Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “The strong presumption against 7 removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to 8 state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 9 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is 10 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 11 599 F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 12 F.2d at 566. “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks 13 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see 14 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th 16 Cir. 1997); see also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th 17 Cir. 2004). 18 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the 19 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when 20 a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 21 complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation 22 omitted) (quoting Audette v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 23 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 838; Duncan, 76 24 F.3d at 1485. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily 25 appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided 26 by anything in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant 27 may interpose.” California, 215 F.3d at 1014. Accordingly, “a case may not be 28 removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 1 plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 2 question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Wayne v. 3 DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. 4 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal 5 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or 6 counterclaim, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under federal law.”). 7 Here, defendant has not shown that removal of this action to this federal court is 8 appropriate. Plaintiff’s complaint is a straightforward unlawful detainer action that is 9 based entirely on state law. Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer 10 action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 2-3.) 11 However, a review of the complaint filed in state court shows that plaintiff did not raise 12 a federal claim in that complaint. (ECF No. 7 at 9-12.) “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists 13 only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 14 pleaded complaint.” California, 215 F.3d at 1014. 15 The cause of action brought by Plaintiff here is plainly based on state law. To 16 the extent that Defendant relies on federal law in defending against Plaintiff’s state law 17 claims, this does not suffice to confer jurisdiction on this Court because the defensive 18 invocation of federal law cannot form the basis of this Court’s jurisdiction. See Vaden, 19 556 U.S. at 70; Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183; California, 215 20 F.3d at 1014. Because there is no federal question appearing in Plaintiff’s complaint in 21 this case, Defendant has failed to properly invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. Remand to 22 the Solano County Superior Court is therefore appropriate and mandatory. 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1447(c); Konrad v. Williams, 2021 WL 3159811 (E.D. Cal. June 2, 2021) (remanding 24 an unlawful detainer action to state court where the defendant claimed the action 25 involved the Fair Housing Act but no such claim was raised in the complaint.) 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Solano County Superior 2 | Court for all future proceedings. 3 4 5 IT |S SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _ April 14, 2023 Bed | Cobabeatin. Hon. Daniel labretta 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 DJCS5 - communityfund23cv000634.remand 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28