Unit 24 CIC, LP v. Mavungu
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- John A. Houston (author)
Analysis
The court reviewed a pro se defendant's removal of a state court unlawful detainer action and motion to proceed in forma pauperis. The court denied the motion as moot and remanded the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, finding the removal lacked subject matter jurisdiction and was untimely.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Denial of Defendant's Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis“For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to proceed IFP and REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.” | agree with court The court denied the motion as moot because it remanded the case. Since the case is leaving federal court, the IFP status in federal court is no longer relevant. This is a standard procedural consequence of a remand. |
Remand of Action to State Court“IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this action is sua sponte REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the complaint alleged only state law claims (unlawful detainer) and did not establish federal question jurisdiction. The court also correctly noted that the removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1) as the complaint was filed in October 2022 and judgment was entered in April 2023, well past the 30-day window. The court applied the correct legal standards for removal jurisdiction and timeliness. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies the well-established legal standards for removal jurisdiction and timeliness. It correctly identifies that the plaintiff's complaint, which alleges only state law claims for unlawful detainer, does not support federal question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule. It also correctly identifies that the removal was untimely based on the dates provided in the record. The reasoning is sound and supported by the cited authorities.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNIT 24 CIC, LP, Case No.: 3:23-cv-01927-JAH-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DENYING AS MOOT 14 OXONE ROSS MAVUNGU, DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO 15 Defendant. PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS;
16 (2) REMANDING THE ACTION TO 17 THE SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN 18 DIEGO. 19 (ECF Nos. 1, 2). 20 21 On October 24, 2022, Plaintiff United 24 CIC, LP (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in 22 the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego for unlawful detainer against 23 Defendant Oxone Ross Mavungu’s (“Defendant”), and Does 1 to 10, inclusive. The 24 complaint only alleges a state law claim and is a limited civil case with a demand not 25 exceeding $25,000. Defendant, appearing pro se, filed a notice of removal, (ECF No. 1), 26 and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (ECF No. 2). For the reasons 27 set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion for leave to proceed IFP and REMANDS 28 the action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 1 DISCUSSION 2 I. Legal Standard 3 The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Kokkoken v. Gardian Life Ins. Co., 4 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As such, it cannot reach the merits of any dispute until it 5 confirms its own subject matter jurisdiction. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environ., 6 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). Thus, at any time during the proceedings, a district court may sua 7 sponte remand a case to state court if the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 8 case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 9 Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action 10 can be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal court. See Caterpillar, 11 Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Thus, a party invoking the federal removal 12 statutes must establish jurisdiction by demonstrating the existence of: (1) a statutory basis; 13 (2) a federal question; or (3) diversity of the parties. See Ely Valley Mines, Inc. v. Hartford 14 Acc. And Indem. Co., 644 F.2d 1310, 1314 (9th Cir. 1981). District courts must construe 15 the removal statutes strictly against removal and resolve any uncertainty as to removability 16 in favor of remanding the case to state court. Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 17 1988). The burden is on the removing party to demonstrate federal subject matter 18 jurisdiction over the case. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 19 1988). 20 II. Analysis 21 Upon review of the notice of removal and the complaint, this Court finds it 22 appropriate to sua sponte remand the case to state court because the notice of removal fails 23 to establish a proper basis for this Court’s jurisdiction. 24 The complaint asserts a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, which does not 25 arise under federal law. Defendant asserts Plaintiff “would not uphold a contractual 26 27 28 1 agreement to protect me from eviction pursuant of the VAMA! [sic] act, which is a federal 2 || law” and Plaintiff “committed fraud by attempting to add illegal, fraudulent charges to the 3 ||balance.” (ECF No. 1. at 2). However, Plaintiff's attempt to invoke federal law in a 4 || fraudulent detainer matter does not confer jurisdiction to this Court. See Caterpillar, 482 5 at 392 (“[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 6 of the plaintiffs properly pleaded complaint.”). Plaintiff's complaint for unlawful 7 || detainer fails to support federal question or diversity jurisdiction. 8 Additionally, even if the complaint established a basis for this Court’s jurisdiction, 9 || Plaintiff's removal notice is untimely. A civil case must be removed thirty (30) days after 10 || the defendant receives notice of the case or within thirty days after the service of summons 11 upon defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Although Defendant does not provide the date 12 which the complaint was served, the complaint was filed on October 24, 2022, and 13 ||judgment entered “[o]n April 2023,” (ECF No. | at 2), rendering Plaintiff's removal of this 14 action untimely. 15 CONCLUSION 16 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this action is sua sponte 17 || REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 || DATED: October 24, 2023 21 JO. A. HOUSTON UMITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 |, 28 It appears Defendant is referencing the Violence Against Women Acct.