United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES
ORDER REMANDING THE ACTION TO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR
COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE (IN CHAMBERS)
Honorable JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27, 2016, Defendant One Up Holistic, a California non-profit
collective, (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of
Removal, purporting to remove this action from California
Superior Court for the County of Riverside to this Court.
(Notice of Removal, Dkt. No. 1.) The Notice of Removal
contends that in June of 2016, Plaintiff 24515 Alessandro
Blvd, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for
unlawful detainer against Defendant. (Complaint, Dkt. No. 1-1.)
The Complaint alleges that on June 13, 2016, Plaintiff served
Defendant with a three-day notice to quit because Defendant
continues to operate a medical marijuana business at the
premises notwithstanding a June 3, 2016 Order from the
Riverside Superior Court mandating that Defendant restrain
from engaging in or performing the operation of a medical
marijuana business, as such activity is unlawful in the City
of Moreno Valley.
jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C.
§1441. The Ninth Circuit applies a strong presumption
against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "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));
see also 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); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493
U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an
independent obligation to examine their own
jurisdiction"); see also 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
Notice of Removal contends that federal subject matter
jurisdiction in this case exists pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1332 because “it is a civil action between citizens of
this state and the matter in controversy exceed[s] the sum or
value of $75, 000…” (Notice of Removal at 2.)
Defendant, represented by counsel, fundamentally
misunderstands federal subject matter jurisdiction premised
upon diversity of the parties. For diversity of the parties
to exist, the citizens must be of different states - hence
the term “diversity” - not the same state.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). As such, Defendant
has not satisfied its burden of establishing subject matter
jurisdiction because there is no diversity of the parties.
the Court notes that Plaintiff’s only claim is for
unlawful detainer, a California state law action. See
Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11-01932 LB, 2011 WL
2194117 at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (“an unlawful
detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal
law but is purely a creature of California law”).
Federal question jurisdiction therefore does not exist,
either. See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barcenasj 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173586, at *1 (CD. Cal. Dec. 5, 2012)
(“Because this is an unlawful detainer action, a
federal question does not present itself.”); Aurora
Loan Servs. v. Orozcoj 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172200, at
*3-4 (CD. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (explaining that unlawful
detainer actions are purely matters of state law and that
“any federal defense Defendant raises is irrelevant
with regard to jurisdiction”).
the absence of both diversity jurisdiction and federal
question jurisdiction, Defendant has not shown - and indeed,
cannot show - that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
in this case.
it clearly appears on the face of the [Notice of Removal] and
any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not be
permitted, the court shall make an order for summary
remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), the Court has examined the Notice
of Removal and concludes that Defendant has not met his
burden of establishing that this case is properly in federal
court. See In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (South Dakota),
N.A., 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.”).
foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to
California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.