United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT
The
Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the
California Superior Court for the County of Los
Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set
forth below.
"The
right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and 'a
suit commenced in a state court must remain there until cause
is shown for its transfer under some act of
Congress.'" Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. v.
Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great
Northern R. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)).
Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those
statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.
Id.; Nevada v. Bank of America Corp., 672
F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,
980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Unless
otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may
remove "any civil action brought in a State court of
which the district courts of the United States have original
jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v.
Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The removing
defendant bears the burden of establishing federal
jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443
F.3d 676, 682 (9th Cir. 2006); Gaus, 980 F.2d at
566-67. "Under the plain terms of § 1441(a), in
order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that
provision, [the removing defendant] must demonstrate that
original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in the federal
courts." Syngenta Crop Protection, 537 U.S. at
33. Failure to do so requires that the case be remanded, as
"[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and .
. . the district court must remand if it lacks
jurisdiction." Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n
v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir.
2003). "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).
It is "elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction
of the district court is not a waivable matter and may be
raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the
responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or
reviewing court." Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,
846 F.2d 1190, 1194 n.2 (9th Cir. 1988).
From a
review of the Notice of Removal and the state court records
provided, it is evident that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the instant case, for the following
reasons.
[√]
No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been
identified:
[√] The Complaint does not include any claim
"arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
[√] Removing defendant(s) asserts that the affirmative
defenses at issue give rise to federal question jurisdiction,
but "the existence of federal jurisdiction depends
solely on the plaintiffs claims for relief and not on
anticipated defenses to those claims." ARCO Envtl.
Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl.
Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). An
"affirmative defense based on federal law" does not
"render[] an action brought in state court
removable." Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426
(9th Cir. 1994). A "case may not be removed to federal
court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the
defense is anticipated in the plaintiffs complaint, and even
if both parties admit that the defense is the only question
truly at issue in the case." Franchise Tax Bd. v.
Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 14
(1983).
[√] The underlying action is an unlawful detainer
proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the
State of California.
[ ]
Diversity jurisdiction is lacking:
[ ] Every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every
plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
[ ] The Complaint does not allege damages in excess of $75,
000, and removing defendant(s) has not plausibly alleged that
the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Id.;
see Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, No.
13-719, 2014 WL 7010692, at *6 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014).
[ ] The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited
civil action that does not exceed $25, 000.
IT IS
THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is,
REMANDED to the Superior Court of California listed above,
...