United States District Court, C.D. California
Court sua sponte REMANDS this
action to the California Superior Court for the County of
San Bernardino for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, as set forth below.
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 Prot., Inc. v.
Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry.
Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally,
where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those
statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.
Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d
661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980
F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
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 Chem. 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 Prot., 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).
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
No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been
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. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Tr., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983).
Removing defendant(s) has not alleged facts sufficient to
show that the requirements for removal under 28 U.S.C. §
1443 are satisfied. Section 1443(1) provides for the removal
of a civil action filed "[a]gainst any person who is
denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right
under any law providing for the equal civil rights of
citizens of the United States . . . ." Even assuming
that the removing defendant(s) has asserted rights provided
"by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial
civil rights, " Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446
F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted),
defendant(s) has not identified any "state statute or a
constitutional provision that purports to command the state
courts to ignore the federal rights" or pointed "to
anything that suggests that the state court would not enforce
[defendant's] civil rights in the state court
proceedings." Id. (citation omitted); see
also Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377, 381-82 (9th
Cir. 1966) (holding that conclusionary statements lacking any
factual basis cannot support removal under § 1443(1)).
Nor does § 1443(2) provide any basis for removal, as it
"confers a privilege of removal only upon federal
officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for
them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law
providing for equal civil rights" and on state officers
who refuse to enforce discriminatory state laws. City of
Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 & 824 n.22
The underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding,
arising under and governed by the laws of the State of
Removing defendant(s) claims that 28 U.S.C. § 1334
confers jurisdiction on this Court, but the underlying action
does not arise under Title 11 of the United States Code.
Diversity jurisdiction is lacking, and/or this case is not
removable on that basis:
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 ...