Jacob Vaakil et al v. Carol Williams et al
Filing
4
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen: The Court HEREBY REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica, Case number 11U01197 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 re) (bp)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:11-cv-06858-JHN -VBKx
Title
Jacob Vaakil et al v. Carol Williams et al
Present: The
Honorable
Date
September 12, 2011
JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN
Alicia Mamer
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not present
Not present
Proceedings:
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT (IN CHAMBERS)
The present action was improperly removed. Having reviewed the Notice of Removal,
docket no. 1, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
Therefore, the Court REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only
over matters specifically authorized by Congress or the Constitution. Kokkonen v.
Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). As the proponent of the Court’s
jurisdiction, the removing defendant bears the burden of establishing it. Abrego Abrego
v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 685 (9th Cir. 2006).
The Notice of Removal states that this action arises under federal law. However, a
review of the Complaint reveals that it is a straightforward unlawful detainer action
proceeding under state law. Defendant claims that this case “arises under” federal law
because defendant is currently involved in a pending federal U.S. bankruptcy case.
However, defendant’s involvement in other incidental litigation that may “arise under”
federal law does not automatically extend federal jurisdiction to defendant’s state action
for unlawful detainer. When a case is removed to federal court on the basis of federal
question jurisdiction, the federal question must be clear from the face of the complaint in
the state court action. Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936). Here, the
Complaint asserts an unlawful detainer action for recovery of possession of real property
under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161. (Compl. 1). No federal question is
presented on the face of the Complaint. Therefore, the Court has no federal question
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:11-cv-06858-JHN -VBKx
Title
Date
September 12, 2011
Jacob Vaakil et al v. Carol Williams et al
Further, it is unclear whether the parties are citizens of different states. Assuming
arguendo that they are, Defendant has failed to show that the requisite amount in
controversy was met. The state court complaint expressly limits the amount in
controversy to “less than $10,000.” (Compl. 1).
Moreover, even if the amount in controversy was satisfied, a removing defendant may not
be a citizen of the forum state. Here, the removing party is a resident of California and is
presumably a California citizen. Therefore, Defendant may not remove the action to this
Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b).1
For these reasons, the Court HEREBY REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles
County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
1
N/A
AM
Section 1441(b) provides:
Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction
founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of
the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or
residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if
none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a
citizen of the State in which such action is brought.
28 U.S.C. § 1441(1) (emphasis added).
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
