Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02055/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02055-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Kwong-Mel Lee Partnership
Plaintiff
Juhne Tuilaucala
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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JACK KWONG-MEL LEE 

PARTNERSHIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

JUHNE TUILAUCALA

Defendant.

No. 2:16-cv-2055 TLN CKD

ORDER REMANDING CASE

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Juhne Tuilaucala’s (“Defendant”) 

Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby remands this 

case to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, due to lack of subject matter 

jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On July 15, 2016, Plaintiff Jack Kwong-Mel Lee Partnership (“Plaintiff”) filed an 

unlawful detainer action in the Sacramento County Superior Court of California. (Not. of 

Removal, ECF No. 1 at 5.) On August 26, 2016, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in the 

United States District Court, Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant asserts that 

Case 2:16-cv-02055-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/01/16 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

removal is proper because “Federal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading 

depend [sic] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” 

(ECF No. 1 at 2, ¶ 10.) For the reasons stated below, this Court finds that subject matter 

jurisdiction does not exist and thus this case must be remanded.

II. STANDARD OF LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal is 

proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been 

filed in federal court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time 

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the 

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer 

v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 

U.S. 974 (2005).

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.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. 

Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a 

federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant removed this case to this Court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. 

Section 1441(a) states: “[e]xcept as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil 

action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the 

United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 

Case 2:16-cv-02055-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/01/16 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

Thus, for jurisdiction to exist under § 1441(a), a federal question must be presented on the face of 

the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. Here, Defendant is

claiming that the Answer implicates federal questions, because the “pleading depend [sic] on the 

determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law,” which are violated 

by Plaintiff’s alleged failure to follow the applicable notice requirements. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) This 

cannot confer original jurisdiction. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (holding that 

removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a 

federal question). Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer does not allege a federal cause of 

action.

Thus, Defendant has failed to meet the burden of showing that jurisdiction before this 

Court is proper, and it is appropriate to remand this case, sua sponte, for lack of federal 

jurisdiction. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (“the district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 

removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of 

California, County of Sacramento. In removing this case, Defendant filed a motion to proceed in 

forma pauperis. (See ECF No. 2.) The Court has reviewed these motions and finds that 

Defendant meets the requirements of in forma pauperis status and thus grants Defendant’s 

requests.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 31, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-02055-TLN-CKD Document 3 Filed 09/01/16 Page 3 of 3