Quevedo v. Blount
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Jinsook Ohta (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a notice of removal for an unlawful detainer action where the defendants claimed federal question jurisdiction but failed to respond to a show cause order. The court ordered the case remanded to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Remand of the case to the Superior Court of California, San Diego County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.“Accordingly, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remands the action to the Superior Court of California, San Diego County.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the well-pleaded complaint rule, which requires that a federal question appear on the face of the complaint to establish federal question jurisdiction. Since the complaint only alleged a state law cause of action for unlawful detainer and the defendants failed to respond to the show cause order, the court properly found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and remanded the case. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-pleaded complaint rule to determine that the state law unlawful detainer claim does not present a federal question. It properly notes the defendants' failure to respond to the show cause order and cites appropriate authorities for the proposition that federal question jurisdiction is lacking. The reasoning is sound and directly addresses the jurisdictional issue.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || BERNARDO QUEVEDO and MARIA Case No.: 21-cv-604-JO-DEB 12 OFELIA QUEVEDO, Plaintiffs,| ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR 13 "| LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER wi JURISDICTION 15 BOBBY BLOUNT, SANDY BLOUNT, and DOES 1-10, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 20 21 On April 7, 2021, Defendants Bobby Blount and Sandy Blount filed a notice o 22 ||removal of an unlawful detainer action from state court. Dkt. 1. On March 3, 2022, th 23 Court ordered Defendants to show cause on or before March 16, 2022, why the case shoul: 24 be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court allowed Plaintiffs tc 25 ||reply by March 30, 2022. Neither party filed a response. 26 “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subjec 27 ||matter jurisdiction, the [removed] case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Thi 28 |ipresence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleadec 1 ||complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question 2 presented on the face of [a] properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 3 ||482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “This rule makes a plaintiff the master of his complaint [and] 4 allows him to avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law.” Balcorta v. 5 || Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp., 208 F.3d 1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2000). Any federal 6 ||defenses or counterclaims Defendants may wish to assert do not give rise to federal 7 || question jurisdiction. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 8 14 (1983). 9 Defendants’ notice of removal states that the Court has federal question jurisdiction 10 || under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).! Dkt. 1 at 2. However, the removed complaint states one cause 11 || of action for unlawful detainer. Dkt. 1 at 2, 15-17. A cause of action for unlawful detainer 12 ||arises under state law and does not require resolution of a substantial question of federal 13 |}law. Ralph Partners I, LLC v. Tate, 2018 WL 3213974, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2018) 14 (collecting cases). 15 The removed complaint states no federal question on its face, and Defendants failed 16 ||to respond to the Court’s order with any further showing of jurisdiction. Accordingly, the 17 Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remands the action to the Superior 18 || Court of California, San Diego County. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 ||Dated: April 14, 2022 Uniféd Stats District Judge 24 25 26 | Defendants, who are residents of California according to the notice of removal, do not argue 27 || diversity jurisdiction exists. Dkt. 1 at 2. In any event, “the presence of a local defendant at the time temoval is sought bars removal” on grounds of diversity jurisdiction. Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. of California, 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)).