Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02330/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02330-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leon Allen
Defendant
Sojourner Truth Multicultural Art Musem, Inc.
Defendant
John Tran
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

JOHN TRAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LEON ALLEN, and SOJOURNER 

TRUTH MULTICULTURAL ART 

MUSEM, INC.,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-02330-GEB-DB

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

On September 29, 2016, Defendant Leon Allen filed a 

Notice of Removal removing this unlawful detainer action from the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento. 

(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 Sacramento 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 -

Case 2:16-cv-02330-GEB-DB Document 4 Filed 10/05/16 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

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 federal question 

removal jurisdiction exists. (NOR at 2–3.) Defendant contends 

“this court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1): Denial of 

due process in Unlawful Detainer.” (Id. at ¶ 2.)

However, review of the Complaint reveals Plaintiff 

alleges a single claim for unlawful detainer 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), overruled on other grounds, Rodriguez v. AT & T 

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

Case 2:16-cv-02330-GEB-DB Document 4 Filed 10/05/16 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

3

(remanding unlawful detainer action sua sponte). 

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Sacramento.

Dated: October 5, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-02330-GEB-DB Document 4 Filed 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3