Free Spool Investments, LLC v. Engbretch ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FREE SPOOL INVESTMENTS, LLC, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-1546 JLT EPG ) 12 Plaintiff, ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE ) TO KINGS COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 13 v. ) ) 14 SHEREE ENGBRETCH and DOES 1 through 5, ) ) 15 Defendants. ) ) 16 17 Free Spool Investments, LLC, initiated this action against Sheree Engbretch by filing a 18 complaint for unlawful detainer in Kings County Superior Court, Case No. 22UD-0329.1 (Doc. 1 at 7- 19 9.) On December 1, 2022, Engbretch filed a Notice of Removal to initiate the matter before this 20 Court. (Doc. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds it lacks subject jurisdiction over the 21 action and the matter is REMANDED to Kings County Superior Court. 22 /// 23 /// 24 1 The Court may take notice of facts that are capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources 25 whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned. Fed. R. Evid. 201(b); United States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 333 (9th Cir. 1993). The accuracy of the Court’s records cannot reasonably be questioned, and judicial notice may be taken of 26 court records. Mullis v. United States Bank. Ct., 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987); Valerio v. Boise Cascade Corp., 80 F.R.D. 626, 635 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 1978), aff’d 645 F.2d 699 (9th Cir. 1981); see also Colonial Penn Ins. Co. v. Coil, 887 27 F.2d 1236, 1239 (4th Cir. 1989); Rodic v. Thistledown Racing Club, Inc., 615 F.2d 736, 738 (6th Cir. 1980). Therefore, judicial notice is taken of the docket and complaint filed on October 13, 2022 in Case No. 22UD-0329, which is attached to 28 the Notice of Removal. 1 I. Removal Jurisdiction 2 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court 3 where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 4 392 (1987). Specifically, 5 Except otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, 6 may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending. 7 8 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have “original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 9 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. 10 A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of 11 receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, 12 and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 13 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its 14 propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 15 676, 683-85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 (“the 16 burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). If there is any doubt 17 as to the right of removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485. 18 The Court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua 19 sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 20 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v. Homestead 21 Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192-93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural and 22 jurisdictional defects and holding a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). Thus, a court 23 “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, whether or 24 not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 1995). 25 II. Discussion and Analysis 26 The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 27 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 28 face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; see also California v. 1 || United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). “It does not suffice to show that a federal 2 || question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would 3 || arise under federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009). Instead, the complaint 4 || must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiffs right to 5 || relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin 6 || Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9t 7 || Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)) 8 Engbretch asserts that “[t]he complaint presents federal questions.” (Doc. 1 at 2.) Significant 9 || however, the only cause of action identified by Free Spool Investments in the complaint is unlawful 10 || detainer. (See Doc. 1 at 7-9.) An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law but arises 11 instead under state law. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Sherzad, 2022 WL 913251, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 2 12 || 2022) (a complaint for unlawful detainer “relies solely on California state law and does not state any 13 || claims under federal law”); Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011 WL 13359134, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 201 14 || (Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court”). Thus, Free Spool 15 || Investments did not raise a claim that invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction. 16 ||. _ Conclusion and Order 17 Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise 18 || jurisdiction and the action must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any 19 || time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 20 || shall be remanded”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 21 1. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court of Kings County for lack of subject 22 matter jurisdiction. 23 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this matter. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 || Dated: _ December 2, 2022 ( LAW pA L. wan 27 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28