Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00075/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00075-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Severina G. Cortez
Defendant
Edison V. Cortez
Defendant
Orchard Terrace Estates, LLC
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ORCHARD TERRACE ESTATES, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDISON V. CORTEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:15-cv-00075-GEB-SAB

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION 

BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) 

DAYS

On January 16, 2015, Defendants Edison V. Cortez and Severina G. Cortez

(“Defendants”) filed the notice of removal in this action. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Orchard Terrace 

Estates, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the original complaint in the Superior Court of California for the 

County of Merced. The original complaint raised a cause of action for unlawful detainer against 

Defendants. Defendants removed the action to this Court and contend that jurisdiction exists 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that jurisdiction does not exist over this 

action and recommends that the action be remanded back to state court.

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-00075-GEB-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/23/15 Page 1 of 4
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

2

I.

SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND LACK OF 

JURISDICTION

District courts may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(6) if the Court gives notice of its intention to dismiss and afford plaintiffs an opportunity to 

at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion.1 Lee v. City of Los 

Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 

986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981)). Moreover, district 

courts have authority to dismiss actions sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. Franklin v. State of 

Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981). “[F]ederal courts are without 

power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and 

unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit” and are “obviously frivolous.” Hagans v. 

Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

II.

DISCUSSION

In this case, Plaintiff brought an unlawful detainer action against Defendants under 

California state law. Defendants’ notice of removal contends that federal question jurisdiction 

exists over this action, but makes no effort to identify any federal issues which arise under 

Plaintiff’s complaint.

District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The well-pleadedcomplaint rule has long governed whether a case ‘arises under’ federal law for purposes of § 

1331.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002). 

“[F]ederal jurisdiction generally exists ‘only when a federal question is presented on the face of 

the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Id. (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

386, 392 (1987) (italics in original). “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or 

 

1 Through these Findings and Recommendations, the Court gives Defendants notice of its intention to remand. 

Defendants have an opportunity to submit a written memorandum in opposition by filing objections to these 

Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:15-cv-00075-GEB-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/23/15 Page 2 of 4
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

3

she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Moreover, “[i]t is a ‘long-settled understanding that the 

mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federalquestion jurisdiction.’” Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1040 

(9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 

(1986)).

Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer is devoid of any federal issues. See First 

Northern Bank of Dixon v. Hatanaka, No. 2:11-cv-02976 MCE KJN PS, 2011 WL 6328713, at 

*3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (“Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a 

federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal 

question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that 

jurisdiction does not exist over this action and the action should be remanded back to state court.

III.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 

RECOMMENDED that this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the 

County of Merced.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 

action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30)

days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 

and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 

captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 

judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 1:15-cv-00075-GEB-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/23/15 Page 3 of 4
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

4

result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 

(citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 23, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00075-GEB-SAB Document 7 Filed 01/23/15 Page 4 of 4