614 Shady Lane, LLC v. Roan

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 614 SHADY LANE, LLC, Case No.: 19-cv-2115-AJB-MDD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING THE 14 ANTOINETTE ROAN, DERELL CASE BACK TO SAN DIEGO MCKELVEY, and TANISHA 15 SUPERIOR COURT; MACKELVEY, 16 Defendants. (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 17 MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; 18 AND 19 (3) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX 20 PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN 21 ORDER SHORTENING TIME ON MOTION TO REMAND 22 23 (Doc. Nos. 3, 5) 24 25 Defendants Antoinette Roan, Derell McKelvey, and Tanisha Mackelvey removed 26 the current unlawful detainer case to federal court. (Doc. No. 1.) Although no motion to 27 remand has been filed, the Court has a continuous duty to evaluate its jurisdiction over 28 cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(3). Thus, for the reasons herein, the Court REMANDS this 1 action back to San Diego Superior Court and DENIES Defendants’ motion for leave to 2 proceed in forma pauperis as moot and DENIES Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an 3 order shortening time on motion to remand as moot.1 4 I. DISCUSSION 5 Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to 6 federal court. 28 U.S.C. §1441. However, the removing party “always has the burden of 7 establishing that removal was proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 8 1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court “if 9 at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 10 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal 11 jurisdiction. Thus, doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction 12 must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 13 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any 14 doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 15 Although Plaintiff has not moved the Court to remand, “a district court’s duty to 16 establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.” See 17 United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). 18 Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v. Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 19 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has emphasized that “district courts have an 20 ‘independent obligation to address subject-matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo 21 Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S. 567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. 22 Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972 (E.D. Cal. 2004)). 23 Defendants’ Notice of Removal asserts that this Court has jurisdiction under 24 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. The federal statute cited raises federal question jurisdiction. 25 For the reasons explained below, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction nor 26 27 1 The Court notes that while Plaintiff filed an ex parte application for an order shortening time on motion 28 1 || diversity jurisdiction over this action. 2 Here, Defendants’ current Notice of Removal is brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 3 || alleging that there is federal question jurisdiction. Specifically, Defendants simply state 4 || that a “federal question exists because Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend [sic] on 5 || the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Doc. No. 6 at 2.) However, Plaintiff's unlawful detainer complaint does not establish federal 7 || question jurisdiction. Defendants might assert a federal defense; however, a federal defense 8 |/alone is insufficient to establish federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, Inc. vy. 9 || Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Furthermore, diversity jurisdiction cannot be 10 || established as there is no diversity of citizenship amongst the parties and the amount in 11 controversy is less than $75,000. 12 As the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction, Defendants’ motion to 13 || proceed in forma pauperis is moot as well as Plaintiff's ex parte application for an order 14 || shortening time on motion to remand. 15 I. CONCLUSION 16 Because Defendant cannot establish federal jurisdiction, removal was improper. The 17 Court REMANDS the case back to San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter 18 jurisdiction, DENIES Defendants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot and 19 || DENIES Plaintiffs ex parte application for an order shortening time on motion to remand 20 || as moot. The Court Clerk is ordered to then close the case. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: December 2, 2019 | ZS iz : Le 23 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 28