Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00938/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00938-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ken Archambault
Defendant
Marcy Archambault
Defendant
Gurmukh Gill
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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GURMUKH GILL, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

KEN ARCHAMBAULT AND MARCY 

ARCHAMBAULT, 

 Defendants. 

1:15-cv-938-LJO-SKO 

SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING 

ACTION TO STANISLAUS COUNTY 

SUPERIOR COURT AND DENYING 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO 

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AS 

MOOT (Docs. 3, 7) 

 

 On June 22, 2015, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an 

action from the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus. Doc. 1. For the following reasons, the Court 

sua sponte REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of California for the County of Stanislaus. 

 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action to federal court if the district 

court has original jurisdiction. Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th Cir. 2003)). 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). Generally, a defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file a 

notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). The 

defendant seeking removal of an action to federal court has the burden of establishing federal 

jurisdiction in the case. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 

 Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer action based on both federal question 

subject matter jurisdiction and diversity of citizenship. Doc. 1. However, Defendant cannot establish 

jurisdiction that is proper. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack inherent or general 

Case 1:15-cv-00938-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 06/26/15 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 

2 

subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United 

States Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve diversity of citizenship or a federal 

question, or cases in which the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 

375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without 

jurisdiction over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is never 

waived and may be raised by the Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., Inc., 

93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its 

jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 

841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 1988). 

 Furthermore, the law is clear in the Ninth Circuit that the removal statute should be strictly 

construed in favor of remand and against removal. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 

698 (9th Cir. 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant 

always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 

Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 

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

 In this case, Defendant is unable to establish subject matter jurisdiction before this Court because 

the complaint filed in the state court apparently contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer 

based on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within 

the province of state court. Defendant’s attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding 

claims or defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 

(2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. 

Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does 

not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is 

anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”). 

Case 1:15-cv-00938-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 06/26/15 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 

3 

 In determining the presence or absence of federal jurisdiction in removal cases, the “wellpleaded complaint rule” applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 

Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her 

complaint’ and can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 

994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. First 

Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law that a cause of action arises under federal law 

only when the plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal law”). 

 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The face of a properly-pled state law 

unlawful detainer action does not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint avoids 

federal question jurisdiction. 

 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus 

for all future proceedings. Defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 3, 7) are DENIED 

as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to take necessary action to remand this case to the Stanislaus 

County Superior Court and also is directed to CLOSE this case. 

Dated: June 26, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 1:15-cv-00938-LJO-SKO Document 11 Filed 06/26/15 Page 3 of 3