Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00033/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00033-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Regency Townhouses
Plaintiff
Miriam Rodriguez
Defendant

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

REGENCY TOWNHOUSES,

Plaintiff,

v.

MIRIAM RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-00033-GEB-EFB

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

On January 6, 2017, Defendant Miriam Rodriguez filed a 

Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer case from the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Solano. (Notice of 

Removal (“NOR”), ECF No. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court 

sua sponte remands this case to the Superior Court of California 

for the County of Solano for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 

“There is a ‘strong presumption against removal 

jurisdiction,’ and the removing party has the burden of 

establishing that removal is proper.” Lindley Contours, LLC v. 

AABB Fitness Holdings, Inc., 414 F. App’x 62, 64 (9th Cir. 2011) 

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

“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). “The court may - indeed must -

 

* The undersigned judge revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a 

Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and Recommendations in this 

case.

Case 2:17-cv-00033-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/12/17 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

2

remand an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC v. Carter, No. CV 12-08985 

MMM (FFMx), 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) 

(citing Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 

346 F.3d 1190, 1192 (9th Cir. 2003)).

Defendant asserts in the NOR that this case is 

removable to this court because of the existence of federal 

questions, granting this court jurisdiction. (NOR at 2.)

However, review of the Complaint reveals Plaintiff 

alleges an unlawful detainer claim under California law, and 

“[a]s a general rule, . . . a case will not be removable if the 

complaint does not affirmatively allege a federal claim.”

Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003). “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.” Retail 

Prop. Trust v. United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 

F.3d 938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted) 

(quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987)). 

“Moreover, ‘it is well established that [the] plaintiff is the 

master of [its] complaint and can plead to avoid federal 

jurisdiction.’” Goraya v. Martinez, No. 2:15-cv-2375-JAM-KJN, 

2015 WL 7281611, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2015) (quoting 

Loowdermilk v. U.S. First Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th 

Cir. 2007) (remanding unlawful detainer action sua sponte), 

overruled on other grounds, Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. 

LLC, 728 F.3d 975, 977 (9th Cir. 2013)). 

Case 2:17-cv-00033-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/12/17 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

3

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Solano.

Dated: January 11, 2017

Case 2:17-cv-00033-GEB-EFB Document 3 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 3