UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 5, 2012
TITLE PIROOZ AMONA
ISAAC ARIANPOUR, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JS-6
On August 10, 2012, Plaintiff Pirooz Amona filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court for unlawful detainer against Defendants Isaac Arianpour and the Arianpour Family Trust [Doc. #1]. Plaintiff alleges that she purchased the property in question on or about June 27, 2012, pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 2924.
Defendants removed the case to this Court on September 18, 2012, on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff's complaint, however, raises no federal question. Although Defendants invoke various federal statutes as an apparent defense or counterclaim, federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009). Moreover, Defendants do not assert that this Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as Plaintiff and Defendants appear to be citizens of California.
"The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction," and courts must reject it "if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Because Defendants have not established a basis for removal jurisdiction on the face of their Notice of Removal, this action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.