(UD)(PS) Catamount Properties 2018, LLC v. Young ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES 2018, No. 2:23-cv-02005-DJC-CKD PS LLC, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 CATHERINE YOUNG, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by Plaintiff 18 Catamount Properties 2018, LLC against Defendant Catherine Young. On Friday, 19 September 15, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, seeking to 20 remove the action from Sacramento County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal (ECF 21 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.” 24 , 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 25 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 26 , 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); 27 , 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. , 599 F.3d at 1106–07; 3 , 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.” 6 , 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.” , 582 F.3d at 1042; , 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.” , 11 599 F.3d at 1107; , 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); , 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); 14 , 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” , 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th 16 Cir. 1997); , 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.” , 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation 22 omitted) (quoting , 23 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)); , 375 F.3d at 838; , 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.” , 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.” , 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); 3 s, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); 4 , 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 Court is 8 appropriate based on the presence of a federal question. Defendant’s removal notice 9 does not state a basis for federal question jurisdiction. ( Notice of Removal.) A 10 review of the complaint filed in state court shows that Plaintiff did not raise a federal 11 claim in that complaint therein. (Notice of Removal at 6–10.) Plaintiff’s complaint is a 12 straightforward unlawful detainer action that is based entirely on state law. “[F]ederal 13 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 14 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” , 215 F.3d at 1014. 15 Moreover, Defendant has not established that removal of this action to federal 16 court is appropriate based on the diversity of the parties. There is no evidence that 17 the parties are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Even if the parties are 18 citizens of different states, a defendant seeking to remove solely on the basis of 19 diversity jurisdiction may not do so when the action was brought in the state in which 20 any defendant is domiciled. , No. 2:21-cv-02160-TLN-DB, 2021 21 WL 5966231, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 24, 2021); 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The notice of removal 22 includes a document in which Defendant declares, in relevant part, that the address at 23 issue is their current residence and has been for “17+ years” and that it is Defendant’s 24 homestead. (Notice of Removal at 18.) This action was originally brought in California 25 state court ( at 6, 8) and Defendant appears to be domiciled in California ( at 18). 26 There is thus no basis for diversity jurisdiction on the face of the Complaint. 27 //// 28 //// 1 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Sacramento County 2 | Superior Court for all future proceedings. This order resolves all pending motions. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 | Dated: _ September 18, 2023 iabea □□ Hon. Daniel labretta 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 DJC1 - catamount23cv02005.remand 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28