The opinion of the court was delivered by: TheHonorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen
Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: ORDER REMANDING TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION (In Chambers)
The matter is before the Court on Defendants Johnny C. Jackson and Janice L. Jackson's (collectively, "Defendants") Notice of Removal. (Docket No. 1.) Having reviewed Defendants' Notice, the Court
REMANDS the action to the Riverside County Superior Court for the reasons stated below.
Plaintiff GMAC Mortgage, LLC, ("Plaintiff") brings an unlawful detainer suit against Defendants in state court. (Compl. 1.) Plaintiff alleges that it obtained title and possession rights to the real property located at 33736 Verbena Avenue, Murrietta, CA 92563 ("Premises") pursuant to a foreclosure sale conducted on October 21, 2010. (Id. ¶ 5.) On or about November 3, 2010, Plaintiff served on Defendants a Notice to Quit and Notice to Vacate requiring Defendants to leave the Premises by midnight on November 8, 2010. (Id. ¶¶ 8-11.) However, Defendants failed to vacate the Premises and continue to remain on the Premises without Plaintiff's consent. (Id. ¶¶11, 12.) Plaintiff seeks damages of $60.00 per day until entry of judgment. The Complaint specifically indicated that the demand does not exceed $10,000.00. (Id. 1.)
Defendants removed the action to federal court citing the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law ("UNCITRAL") and claiming that their liability was "commercially discharged under international law." (Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1, 4.)
A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court based on either federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal statute is "strictly construe[d] . . . against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The removing party "always has the burden of establishing that removal was proper." Id. The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Further, based on the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, the case must be remanded to state court if the court has any doubts about its subject matter jurisdiction. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 ("Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.").
Federal question jurisdiction only extends to cases "in which a well-pleaded complaint establishes either
(1) that federal law creates the cause of action or (2) that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law, in that federal law is a necessary element of one of the well-pleaded . . . claims." Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 808 (1988) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). Upon removal, the defendant must show that the "resolution of a federal . . . question is essential to each of [plaintiff's] alternative theories in support of any  cause  of action in the complaint. [I]f a single state law based theory of ...