The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable David O. Carter, Judge
Julie Barrera Not Present Courtroom Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REMAND THIS CASE TO STATE COURT
Before the Court is Plaintiff RBC Development, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application to Remand This Case to State Court (Dkt. 6). No opposition was filed. The Court finds the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed R. Civ. P. 78; Local R. 7-15. After consideration, the Court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, and REMANDS it to Orange County Superior Court, North Justice Center.
Plaintiff RBC Development (RBC) filed this unlawful detainer action in Orange County Superior Court on August 13, 2012, Case Number 30-2012 00590625. On October 26, 2012, Defendant Oscar L. Carillo, Jr., in pro per, removed the action, apparently on the bases of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or civil rights jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See Not. of Removal (Dkt. 1) at 2-3. Plaintiff submitted an Ex Parte Application to Remand, which was unopposed by Defendant.
A district court "shall" remand a case if "at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction." Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.), Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
The two main forms of subject matter jurisdiction are commonly referred to as "federal question jurisdiction" and "diversity jurisdiction." A federal court has federal question jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U. S. C. § 1331. A federal court has diversity jurisdiction if: (1) the controversy is between "citizens of different States"; and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. In addition, "civil rights jurisdiction" exists when a defendant "is denied or cannot enforce" his or her civil rights in state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1443.
I. Federal Question Jurisdiction
This is a state law unlawful detainer action. To the extent that Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction based on federal constitutional defenses, his argument is unavailing because "[t]he 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 (U.S.
The Complaint reveals that Plaintiff brings only an action for "Unlawful Detainer." Not. of Removal at Ex. B. It is well established that "an unlawful detainer action" is an action brought under state law that does not raise federal question jurisdiction. Deanann Trust No 14141 Southland Homes Real Estate and Investment v. Esteban Banos et al., CV-12-1083-DOC-MLGx (C.D. Cal. July 20,
Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. De La Rosa, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69217 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011) (sua sponte remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim); Indymac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. , No. EDCV 09-2337, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8421, 2010 WL 234828, *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94996, 2009 WL 3157411, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) ("Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action ...