Spate v. E.A. ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARIAH LYN SPATE, ) Case No.: 1:22-cv-00841 JLT SAB ) ORDER DISMISSING THE ACTION FOR LACK 12 Plaintiff, ) OF JURISDICTION AND FINDING THE ) APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 13 v. ) PAUPERIS AND THE MOTION FOR ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER ARE 14 HERON POINT APARTMENT, JOHN ) MOOT CADWALADER, ) 15 ) (Docs. 1, 2, and 3) Defendants. ) 16 ) 17 18 Ms. Spate seeks to impose liability on the defendants, to obtain a temporary restraining order 19 (Doc. 3) and to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2) in this action. For the reasons set forth below, the 20 Court finds it lacks jurisdiction over the action, so it will DISMISS the action and find the application 21 to proceed IFP and the motion temporary restraining order are MOOT. 22 II. Discussion and Analysis 23 The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 24 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 25 face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; see also California v. 26 United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). “It does not suffice to show that a federal 27 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would 28 arise under federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009). Instead, the complaint 1 || must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff's nght to 2 || relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin 3 || Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9t 4 || Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)) 5 The only cause of action identified by the plaintiff is unlawful detainer that was motivated by 6 || fraud. (See Doc. 1 at 7-10.) An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law. See Wells 7 || Fargo Bank vy. Sherzad, 2022 WL 913251, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2022) (a complaint for unlawful 8 || detainer “relies solely on California state law and does not state any claims under federal law’); 9 || Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011 WL 13359134, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011) (“Unlawful detainer 10 || actions are strictly within the province of state court”). The fact that Ms. Spate alleges that the 11 || unlawful detainer action was motivated by fraud does not give rise to a federal question. 12 || Consequently, the Court lacks jurisdiction over the action and cannot consider the motion for a 13 temporary restraining! order (Doc. 3) or the application to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 2). 14 ||. _§ Conclusion and Order 15 Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise 16 || jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 17 1. The action is DISMISSED. 18 2. The motion for a temporary restraining order (Doc. 3) is MOOT. 19 2. The application to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 2) is MOOT. 20 3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this matter. 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 |! Dated: _ July 10, 2022 ( LAW ph UJ bwin 24 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 || ' The motion for the temporary restraining order fails to comply with Local Rule 231(c). In addition, in the 27 || motion Plaintiff presents insufficient factual information and no legal analysis. Ms. Spate has been notified of the requirements for a temporary restraining order by this Court in the past (Spate v. Lake County □□□□□□□□□ 28 || Department, et al., Case No. 2:20-cv-02423 JAM KJN [Doc. 5]). Thus, even if the Court had jurisdiction, it could not determine the merits of the motion.