Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Future Vision Properties LLC v. Robert G Raven et al

October 19, 2011

FUTURE VISION PROPERTIES LLC
v.
ROBERT G RAVEN ET AL



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Jacqueline H. Nguyen

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN

Chris Silva Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not present Not present

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO VENTURA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

On September 8, 2011, Plaintiff Future Vision Properties, LLC ("Plaintiff") brought a Complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendants Robert G. Raven and Arlene H. Raven (collectively "Defendants") in state court. On October 11, 2011, Defendants removed the case to federal court. (Docket No. 1.) Having considered the Notice of Removal, the Court finds no federal jurisdiction and REMANDS the case to the Ventura County Superior Court.

I. Discussion

Removal to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which in relevant part states that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants[.]"

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, the Court may remand a case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party invoking federal jurisdiction." U.S. v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008).

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under" federal law. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The only exception to this rule is where plaintiff's federal claim has been disguised by "artful pleading," such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law.

Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).

Here, although Defendants allege that the claims arise under federal law, Plaintiff's only cause of action is for unlawful detainer in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure ยง 1161a. (Compl. 1.) No federal question is presented on the face of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.