Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00826/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-00826-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
FG Sorelle, LLC
Plaintiff
Valentina Kozlov
Defendant
Vladimer Kozlov
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

FG SORELLE, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

VLADIMER KOZLOV; VALENTINA 

KOZLOV; and DOES 1–10, 

INCLUSIVE, 

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-00826-GEB-AC

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER*

On April 21, 2016, Defendant Vladimer Kozlov

(“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal removing this unlawful 

detainer case from the Superior Court of California for the 

County of Placer. (Notice of Removal (NOR), ECF No. 1.) For the 

following reasons, this case is remanded sua sponte to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Placer because the 

federal court is without subject matter jurisdiction over this 

case. 

“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)). 

Defendant asserts in the Notice of Removal that federal question 

removal jurisdiction exists. Specifically, Defendant contends

 

* The undersigned judge revokes referral of this case a Magistrate Judge.

Case 2:16-cv-00826-GEB-AC Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 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

that removal is appropriate because it is based on “the federal 

question of violations of federal laws re [sic] fair housing, 

retaliatory evictions, and related racial discrimination 

violation of [f]ederal laws,” which are Defendant’s anticipated 

defenses and constitute the asserted federal question justifying

removal. (NOR ¶ 1.) 

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)). 

Further, “it [is] . . . settled law that a case may not be 

removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense [that] 

would arise only as a defense to a state created action” because 

such a defense does not create federal subject matter 

jurisdiction. Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr.

Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14, 16 (1983); 

see also Int’l Union of Operating Eng’rs v. Cty. of Plumas, 559 

F.3d 1041, 1045 (9th Cir. 2009) (explaining that federal 

jurisdiction “only arises . . . when the federal law does more 

than just shape a court’s interpretation of state law; the 

Case 2:16-cv-00826-GEB-AC Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 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

federal law must be at issue”). 

For the stated reasons, this case is remanded to the 

Superior Court of California for the County of Placer.

Dated: April 22, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-00826-GEB-AC Document 5 Filed 04/26/16 Page 3 of 3