Plaza Home Mortg. Plaza Home Mortg., Inc. v. Phillips (C.D. Cal., 2016)

Copy Citation

PLAZA HOME MORTGAGE, INC Plaintiff
v.
HARRY PHILLIPS, NATHANIELCOLLINS, et al Defendant(s).

CASE NUMBER: CV 16-8554 FMO(JCx)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

November 21, 2016

ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT

                The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below.

                "The 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 Protection, Inc. v. Henson 537 U.S. 28 32 (2002) (quoting Great Northern R. Co. v. Alexander 246 U.S. 276 280 (1918)). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id. ; Nevada v. Bank of America Corp. 672 F.3d 661 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc. 980 F.2d 564 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

                Unless 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.

Page 2

Dow Chemical 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 Protection 537 U.S. at 33. Failure to do so requires that the case be remanded, as "subject 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).

                From a 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 reasons.

                v No basis for federal question jurisdiction has been identified:

v The Complaint does not include any claim "arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. " 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

v 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 plaintiff's 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 plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case. " Franchise Tax Bd. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust 463 U.S. 1 14 (1983).

v The underlying action is a forcible entry/detainer proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the State of California.

Page 3

                v Diversity jurisdiction is lacking:

v Every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

v 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 Cherokee Basin Operating Co LLC v. Owens No. 13-719, 2014 WL 7010692, at *6 (U.S. Dec. 15, 2014).

v The underlying forcible entry/detainer action is a limited civil action that does not exceed $25, 000.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California listed above, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

                Date: November 21, 2016

                /s/ Fernando M. Olguin
                United States District Judge