Catamount Properties 2018, LLC v. Lucore ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CATAMOUNT PROPERTIES 2018, Case No.: 21-cv-00097-L-MDD LLC, 12 ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING Plaintiff, 13 CASE TO STATE COURT v. 14 PAUL M. LUCORE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Paul M. Lucore, again, removed this unlawful detainer state action to 18 federal court. For the reasons stated below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action 19 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 20 BACKGROUND 21 On November 12, 2019, Defendant removed this action to federal court. (See Doc. 22 No. 2, Notice of Related Case; Docket No. 19-cv-02158-L-AHG). Plaintiff filed a 23 motion to remand. Id. Defendant filed an opposition. Id. On September 2, 2020, the 24 Court granted the motion and remanded the action to state court. Id. 25 On January 19, 2021, Defendant removed this action again based on the same state 26 complaint. (Doc. No. 1). He contends the removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. sections 27 1331, 1443(1) and 1441. 28 1 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 2 authorized by Constitution or statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is 3 to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of 4 establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. 5 Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994).1 Consistent with the limited 6 jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is strictly construed against removal. 7 Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing 8 removal jurisdiction is on the removing party. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. 9 Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-85 (9th Cir. 2006). 10 The state complaint does not raise any federal questions—as the Court previously 11 determined. (Doc. No. 1; see Docket No. 19-cv-02158-L-AHG); Rivet v. Regions Bank 12 of Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998); see also Takeda v. NW Nat. Life Ins. Co., 765 13 F.2d 815, 821-22 (9th Cir. 1985). The complaint contains a single claim for unlawful 14 detainer arising under state law. (Doc. No. 1). 15 Defendant’s conclusory assertion that his due process rights will be violated unless 16 the action is heard in federal court is insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction. 17 See Ghaemmaghami v. Diaz, No. 15cv0732 JM(BGS), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48382, at 18 *5 (S.D. Cal. 2015) (removal improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) where the defendant 19 simply recited broad constitutional legal theories related to a state court unlawful detainer 20 action). Defendant has not shown the state court is unable to protect his constitutional 21 right to due process. (Doc. No. 1). 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 1 Unless otherwise noted, internal quotation marks, ellipses, brackets, citations, and 28 1 Accordingly, Defendant fails to meet his burden. “If at any time before final 2 judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 3 remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). This action is REMANDED to the Superior Court 4 ||for the State of California, County of San Diego. See Maniar v. FDIC, 979 F.2d 782, 785 5 || (Oth Cir. 1992). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 8 ||Dated: January 29, 2021 1 fee fp 10 H . James Lorenz, United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28