Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00194/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00194-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Hidden Creek, AKF LLC
Plaintiff
Danielle Myrick
Defendant
Jamaa J. Myrick
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

HIDDEN CREEK, AKF LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

DANIELLE MYRICK; and JAMAA J. 

MYRICK,

Defendant.

No. 2:17-cv-00194-GEB-KJN

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

On January 27, 2017, Defendants Danielle Myrick and 

Jamaa J. Myrick 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 

 

* 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-00194-GEB-KJN Document 4 Filed 02/06/17 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

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall 

be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The court may - indeed must -

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 a single California claim for unlawful detainer, 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. 15-2375-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 

Case 2:17-cv-00194-GEB-KJN Document 4 Filed 02/06/17 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

other grounds, Rodriguez v. AT&T Mobility Servs. LLC, 728 F.3d 

975, 977 (9th Cir. 2013)). 

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Solano.

Dated: February 6, 2017

Case 2:17-cv-00194-GEB-KJN Document 4 Filed 02/06/17 Page 3 of 3