United States District Court, C.D. California
IH4 PROPERTY WEST, L.P.
EDWARD T. HOLLAND ET AL
For IH4 Property West, LP, a Delaware Limited Partnership, Plaintiff: Roy S. Kim, LEAD ATTORNEY, Kimball, Tirey and St. John, LLP, Los Angeles, CA.
Edward T. Holland, Defendant, Pro se, Los Angeles, CA.
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
The Honorable BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, United States District Judge.
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Plaintiff IH4 Property West, LP (" IH4 Property") initiated an unlawful detainer action against Defendants Edward and Cynthia Holland (collectively, " Defendants") on July 23, 2014. (Dkt. No. 1 at 29.) Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in this Court on December 2, 2014. (Id. at 1.) For the following reasons, the Court finds removal was improper and hereby REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles.
This is an unlawful detainer action. Defendants are the prior owners and current occupiers of 7811 South Harvard Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90047. (Compl. ¶ 2.) On June 23, 2014, IH4 Property purchased the property at a foreclosure sale, thus extinguishing Defendants' title. (Id. ¶ 5.) Defendants continued to occupy the property after the sale without IH4 Property's consent. (Id. ¶ 7.) On July 17, 2014, IH4 Property served Defendants with a notice to quit the property within three days of service. (Id. ¶ 8.) Defendants refused to vacate, causing IH4 Property to bring the unlawful detainer action that is the subject of this removal. (Id.)
On July 23, 2014, IH4 Property filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, alleging a single cause of action for unlawful detainer under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. ( See generally id.) IH4 Property requests possession and damages amounting to the property's real rental value of $71.66 per day, beginning on July 22, 2014, which is the date the notice to quit expired. (Id. ¶ ¶ 11-12.) The Complaint specifies that the amount of damages will not exceed $10, 000. (Id. ¶ 1.c.) On December 2, 2014, Defendants removed the action to this Court, invoking federal court subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § § 1332, 1441, 1443, and 1446. (Dkt. No. 1 at 1.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The Ninth Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring that " the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); accord In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (" The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court."). " If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); accord Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (" If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action."); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231, 110 S.Ct. 596, 107 L.Ed.2d 603 (1990) (" [F]ederal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction . . . .").
Defendants invoke 28 U.S.C. § § 1332, 1441, 1443, and 1446 as the bases for removing this action. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.) Because § § 1441 and 1446 are procedural in nature, the Court will only address ...