Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01475/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01475-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 29:1161 COBRA - Continuation Coverage

---

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

HCA EASTLAKE APARTMENTS

L.P dba BONITA HILLS

APARTMENTS,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 16CV1475-GPC(JLB)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING ACTION TO STATE

COURT

v.

JOSEPH AKINO, III; EMILROSE L.

AKINO; DOES I to X, inclusive,

Defendants.

On June 14, 2016, Defendants filed a notice of removal of this unlawful detainer

action from the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County. 

Having reviewed Defendants’ notice of removal, the Court finds it does not have

subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte

REMANDS the action to state court. 

Discussion

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l

Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power authorized by

the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S.

534, 541 (1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal subject

matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env't,

523 U.S. 83, 93–94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090,

- 1 - [16CV1475-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:16-cv-01475-GPC-JLB Document 5 Filed 06/16/16 Page 1 of 3
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

1092 (9th Cir.1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A

state court action can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in

federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 (1987); Duncan v.

Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir.1996). Thus, for an action to be removed on the

basis of federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal

law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends

on the resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal.

v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983).

Alternatively, a federal court may have diversity jurisdiction over an action involving

citizens of different states where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28

U.S.C. § 1332.

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the

‘well-pleaded complaintrule,’which providesthatfederal jurisdiction exists onlywhen

a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

A review of the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff alleges a

single unlawful detainer claim under California state law. (Dkt. No. 1-2 at 3-5.) It also

alleges that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000 and seeks the amount of

unpaid rent. (Id.) 

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal,

and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v.

Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.1988). “Federal jurisdiction must

be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus

v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

In the notice of removal, Defendants allege that the Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to a federal question because their demurrer depends on federal law. (Dkt.

No. 1 -2 at 6-8.) A review of the demurrer presents no federal question. Even if the

demurrer alleged a federal question, Defendants’ alleged federal “claims” are most

- 2 - [16CV1475-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:16-cv-01475-GPC-JLB Document 5 Filed 06/16/16 Page 2 of 3
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

likely defenses or counterclaims against Plaintiff’s claims. However, neither defenses

nor counterclaims are considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on

the face of a Plaintiff’s complaint. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009)

(federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”);

Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense

to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense

isthat of federal preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). As such,

Defendants’ allegations do not establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331. 

Defendants have not adequately established a basis for this Court’s subject

matter jurisdiction. The Court must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

Conclusion

Based on the above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to the Superior

Court of the State of California for San Diego County.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 16, 2016

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 - [16CV1475-GPC(JLB)]

Case 3:16-cv-01475-GPC-JLB Document 5 Filed 06/16/16 Page 3 of 3