Proceedings: ORDER REMANDING CASE TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (In Chambers)
Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN
Alicia Mamer Not Reported N/A
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter/Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association's ("Plaintiff") Motion to Remand Case and Request for Attorney's Fees and Costs. (Docket no. 6.) No Opposition was filed. The Court has reviewed the Motion and deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Local Rule 7-15. Accordingly, the hearing set for January 30, 2012, is removed from the Court's calendar. Having considered the Notice of Removal, the Court finds no federal jurisdiction and hereby REMANDS the case to Riverside County Superior Court.
On August 4, 2011, Plaintiff brought a Complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendant Danielle Jenkins ("Defendant") in Riverside County Superior Court. (Docket no. 1 at 11.) On November 17, 2011, Defendant removed the case to federal court. (Docket no. 1 at 1.) Plaintiff's filed the instant Motion on December 8, 2011. (Docket no. 6.) Defendant did not file an Opposition.
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). "[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the defense of preemption, even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint . . . ." Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983).