United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER REMANDING 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. ___ U.S. ___, 135 S.Ct. 547, 554 (2014).
[√
] The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited civil
action that does not exceed $25, 000.
IS
THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is,
REMANDED to the Superior Court of California listed above,
...