Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02254/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 443
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Accommodations
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALKINI LAUDERDALE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 12-CV-2254 - IEG (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING JOINT

MOTION TO REMAND

[Doc. No. 3]

vs.

HOM PROPERTIES, L.P., et al.,

Defendants.

On July 26, 2012, Plaintiffs filed this landlord-tenant action in San Diego County Superior

Court, alleging various state law claims as well as claims under the Residential Lead-Based Paint

Hazard Reduction Act of 1992 (the “Lead-Based Paint Act”), 42 U.S.C. § 852(d). [See Doc. No.

1, Ex. 2.] On September 14, 2012, Defendants removed to this Court, invoking federal question

jurisdiction on the basis of the Lead-Based Paint Act claims. [Doc. No. 1 at 2-3.] On September

20, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, omitting any claims under the Lead-Based Paint

Act or other federal law. [See Doc. No. 2.] On September 28, 2012, the parties filed a joint

motion to remand, stipulating that no federal questions remain as a basis for this Court’s

jurisdiction. [Doc. No. 3 at 2.] For the reasons below, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter

jurisdiction and thus GRANTS the parties’ joint motion to remand.

DISCUSSION

“A civil case commenced in state court may, as a general matter, be removed by the

defendant to federal district court, if the case could have been brought there originally.” Martin v.

- 1 - 12cv2254

Case 3:12-cv-02254-IEG-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/05/12 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132, 134 (2005) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). But “[i]f 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). Where, as here, removal is predicated on 28 U.S.C. §

1331, i.e., federal question jurisdiction, “a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless

the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’ federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. of

State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California, 463 U.S. 1, 10

(1983). To “arise under” federal law, “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of

the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” Id.

at 11. 

Here, as the parties agree, [see Doc. No. 3], Plaintiff’s amended complaint asserts only

state law causes of action, of which no right or immunity under the Constitution or federal law is

an essential element. [See Doc. No. 2.] Thus, as no federal question is essential to Plaintiff’s

claims, no federal question jurisdiction exists. Franchise Tax Bd. at 11. Accordingly, the Court

lacks subject matter jurisdiction and this case must be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons the Court hereby GRANTS the parties’ joint motion and

REMANDS this action to state court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 5, 2012 ______________________________

IRMA E. GONZALEZ

United States District Judge

- 2 - 12cv2254

Case 3:12-cv-02254-IEG-RBB Document 4 Filed 10/05/12 Page 2 of 2