(UD)(PS) Roem Development Corporation v. Singleton ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Roem Development Corporation, No. 2:23-cv-00847-KJM-KJIN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Gloria Singleton, 1S Defendant. 16 17 On May 4, 2023, pro se defendant Gloria Singleton removed this unlawful detainer action 18 | from the Solano County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. As explained below, 19 | the court remands the case back to that court. 20 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is 21 | iitially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 22 | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 23 | jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Here, 24 | defendant relies only on the first basis. See Notice of Removal at 2.’ A federal district court may 25 | remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not established federal jurisdiction. See 28 26 | U.S.C. § 1447(c) (If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks ' Pagination refers to numbers applied by the CM/ECF system. 1 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded . . . .”); Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 2 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 3 (1921)). 4 Under section 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions 5 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under 6 the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the 7 plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 8 Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question 9 jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover 10 Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 11 Here, although defendant invokes federal question jurisdiction, her jurisdictional claim 12 rests on her answer. See Notice of Removal at 2. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, an 13 actual or anticipated defense does not support federal question jurisdiction, see Vaden, 556 U.S. 14 at 60, so defendant’s answer does not give this court power to hear her case. Because the court 15 does not have jurisdiction, it must remand. 16 In sum, the court has determined sua sponte that it appears to lack subject matter 17 jurisdiction over this case, so it remands to the Solano County Superior Court. Cf. Matheson v. 18 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Where doubt regarding the 19 right to removal exists, a case should be remanded to state court.”). 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 DATED: May 9, 2023.