Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mission Property Management Co., Inc. v. Fried

United States District Court, N.D. California

June 6, 2017

MISSION PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO., INC., Plaintiff,
v.
CINDY FRIED, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND TO STATE COURT; ORDER GRANTING IN FORMA PAUPERIS APPLICATION RE: DKT. NOS. 1, 2

          KANDIS A. WESTMORE United States Magistrate Judge

         On May 15, 2017, Defendant Cindy Fried removed this unlawful detainer action from Alameda County Superior Court, and applied to proceed in forma pauperis. (Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1; IFP Appl., Dkt. No. 2.)

         As removal is clearly improper, and the parties have not consented to the undersigned, for the reasons set forth below, the Court reassigns this case to a district judge and recommends that the case be remanded to state court. Additionally, the Court grants Defendant's application to proceed in forma pauperis.

         I. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff Mission Property Management Co. commenced this unlawful detainer action against Defendants Cindy Fried and Maurice Fried in Alameda County Superior Court on or around March 3, 2017. (Not. of Removal at 11.) The complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Id. The case is a “limited civil case, ” in which Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of a certain property located in Newark, California, which Defendants occupy. Id. at ¶ 3.

         Plaintiff alleges that Defendants signed a fixed term lease on or about March 5, 2016, and are now demanding possession of the property due to the expiration of the lease. (Compl., Dkt No. 1 at 11-13 ¶¶ 6, 9.)

         On May 15, 2017, Defendant Cindy Fried removed the action to federal court on the grounds that it presents a federal question. (Not. of Removal at 2.)[1]

         II. LEGAL STANDARD

         Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction. A “federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citation omitted). A defendant may remove a civil action from state court to federal court if original jurisdiction would have existed at the time the complaint was filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. Countrywide Homes Loans Servicing, LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance, ” such that courts must resolve all doubts as to removability in favor of remand. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The burden of establishing that federal jurisdiction exists is on the party seeking removal. See Id. at 566-67.

         Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over actions that present a federal question or those based on diversity jurisdiction. See Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2002). Federal district courts have federal question jurisdiction over "all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Federal question jurisdiction is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides that the basis for federal jurisdiction must appear on the face of the properly pleaded complaint, either because the complaint directly raises an issue of federal law or because the plaintiff's "right to relief under state law requires resolution of a substantial question of federal law in dispute between the parties." Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983). "[A] case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . ., even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint . . . ." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (citation omitted).

         III. DISCUSSION

         Defendant removed this unlawful detainer action from state court on the grounds that the district court has jurisdiction because the case presents a federal question.

         A. Federal Question Jurisdiction

         Defendant claims that a federal question exists because Defendants are bona fide tenants pursuant to the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act (“PTFA”), and Plaintiff failed to allege compliance with PTFA, serving only a three day notice to quit. (Not. of Removal ¶¶ 3, 7.) Defendants' rights in an unlawful detainer action, however, depend on the interpretation of state law. Further, Defendant has not shown why the resolution of Plaintiff's unlawful detainer claim will turn on a ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.