Wedgewood Cmty. Fund II Wedgewood Cmty. Fund II, LLC v. Zadoyan (C.D. Cal., 2013)

Copy Citation

WEDGEWOOD COMMUNITY FUND II, LLC, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT S. ZADOYAN and DOES 1-10, Defendants.

Case No. 2: 13-cv-0567-ODW (JCGx)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

February 5, 2013

cc: order, docket, remand letter toLos Angeles Superior Court, South Central DistrictNo. 12Q 01996

        The Court has received Defendant Robert Zadoyan's Notice of Removal. Having carefully considered the papers filed in conjunction with Zadoyan's Notice, the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court.

        Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e. g Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am 511 U.S. 375 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Page 2

        The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp 445 F. 3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus v. Miles, Inc 980 F.2d 564 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule, ' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. " Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A plaintiff may therefore avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law, and "federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense. " Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 60 (2009); see also Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F. 3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2009) ("It is settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense. " (internal quotation marks omitted)).

        A case removed from state court should be remanded if it appears that it was removed improvidently. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Because the "removal statutes are strictly construed against removal, " doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of remand. Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co 592 F.2d 1062 1064 (9th Cir. 1979); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc 980 F.2d 564 566 (9th Cir. 1992) ("Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance. ").

        Zadoyan premises his removal solely on federal-question grounds, arguing that the state-court action "arises from a dispute regarding foreclosure of" his property, for which he intends to file (sometime in the future) a 22-claim federal action alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. (Notice of Removal 1. ) But Wedgewood's state-law unlawful-detainer Complaint does not present a federal question—even if it may be related to some as-of-yet-unfiled federal action (or an already-filed federal action, for that matter). Aurora Loan Servs. v. De La Rosa, No. 11-912, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69217, at *3 (C. D. Cal. June 27, 2011); see also IndyMac Fed. Bank, F. S. B. v. Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (sua sponte remanding an action to

Page 3

state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim); Galileo Fi. v. Miin Sun Park, No. 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C. D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) ("Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists. "). Additionally, the Complaint does not allege any other federal question, and any federal defense Zadoyan raises is irrelevant with regard to jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60; Hunter, 582 F. 3d at 1042-43. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case under § 1331.

        For the reasons discussed above, the Court REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No. 12Q01996. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

        IT IS SO ORDERED.

        ______________        HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II        UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE