JJD Management Associates v. Halajian ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JJD Management Associates, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00702 JLT SKO 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE TO FRESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 14 Barry Halajian and Industrial Electric Company, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint for unlawful detainer in Fresno County 18 Superior Court, Case No. 24CECL05667.1 Defendants filed a Notice of Removal to initiate the 19 matter before this Court. (Doc. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds it lacks subject 20 matter jurisdiction over the action and therefore REMANDS the matter to Fresno County Superior 21 Court. 22 I. Removal Jurisdiction 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant has the right to remove a matter to federal court 24 where the district court would have original jurisdiction. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 286, 25 392 (1987). Specifically, 26 27 1 Defendant did not attach to the removal papers a copy of the original complaint. The Court takes judicial notice of the docket and relevant filings in the originating case. See Fed. R. Evid. 201; 28 United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (confirming that a court may take judicial notice of records of other courts). 1 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 2 jurisdiction, 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 3 is pending. 4 5 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). District courts have “original jurisdiction [over] all civil actions arising under 6 the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Id. at § 1331. 7 A party seeking removal must file a notice of removal of a civil action within thirty days of 8 receipt of a copy of the initial pleading. Id. at § 1446(b). Removal statutes are to be strictly construed, 9 and any doubts are to be resolved in favor of state court jurisdiction and remand. See Gaus v. Miles, 10 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of proving its 11 propriety. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 12 F.3d 676, 683–85 (9th Cir. 2006); see also Calif. ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 2274 F.3d 831, 838 13 (“the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls to the party invoking the statute”). If there is any 14 doubt as to the right of removal, “federal jurisdiction must be rejected.” Duncan, 76 F.3d at 1485. 15 The Court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over [a] removed action sua 16 sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 17 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Kelton Arms Condo. Homeowners Ass’n v. 18 Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192–93 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting a distinction between procedural 19 and jurisdictional defects and holding a “district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”). Thus, a 20 court “can, in fact must, dismiss a case when it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, 21 whether or not a party has a filed a motion.” Page v. City of Southfield, 45 F.3d 128, 133 (6th Cir. 22 1995). 23 II. Discussion and Analysis 24 The determination of subject matter jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint 25 rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 26 face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; see also California 27 v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000). “It does not suffice to show that a federal 28 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would 1 || arise under federal law.” Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009). Instead, the complaint 2 || must establish “either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff's right to 3 || relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin 4 || Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 5 || (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 6 || (1983)). 7 The only cause of action identified by the Plaintiff in the complaint is unlawful detainer. (See 8 || Case No. 24CECL05667, Unlawful Detainer Complaint.) An unlawful detainer action arises under 9 || state law, not federal law. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Sherzad, 2022 WL 913251, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 10 || 29, 2022) (a complaint for unlawful detainer “relies solely on California state law and does not state 11 || any claims under federal law”); Fannie Mae v. Suarez, 2011 WL 13359134, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 12 2011) (‘Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court”). Thus, the Plaintiff 13 || did not raise a claim that invokes federal subject matter jurisdiction. 14 ||. _§ Conclusion and Order 15 Because there is no federal question appearing in the complaint, the Court cannot exercise 16 || jurisdiction and the action must be remanded to the state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any 17 || time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case 18 || shall be remanded”). Accordingly, the Court ORDERS: 19 1. The matter is REMANDED to the Superior Court for the County of Fresno due to 20 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 21 2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this matter. 22 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 |! Dated: _ June 18, 2024 ( LAW pA L. wan 25 TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28