Signet Domain LLC v. Samuel G. Bailey et al
Filing
7
MINUTES: IN CHAMBERS ORDER ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT by Judge George H. Wu The Court thus REMANDS the action to state court, orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve this order on all parties who have appeared in this action (remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court IN LONG BEACH, Case number 13F02974) Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Letter Remand to State Court In Long Beach) (pj)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-5226-GW(CWx)
Title
Signet Domain, LLC v. Samuel G. Bailey, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
August 23, 2013
GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Javier Gonzalez
None Present
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present
None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS):
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
On April 23, 2013 Signet Domain LLC, as Trustee for Ponderosa Trust (“Plaintiff”) ,allegedly
became the owner of real property located at 17637 Ponderosa Way, Carson, CA 90746 (the “Subject
Property”) at a trustee’s sale following foreclosure proceedings. Compl. ¶¶ 3-7. Defendant Samuel G.
Bailey (“Defendant”) allegedly occupied the Subject Property and was served with a “Three Day Notice
to Quit” on May 15, 2013; Defendant remained in possession of the Subject Property for more than
three days after service thereof. Id. ¶¶ 12-14. On May 21, 2013 Plaintiff instituted unlawful detainer
proceedings in state court. Id. at 1. Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the action to this Court on
July 19, 2013 on the grounds that “Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice which expressly references
and incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009’, 12 U.S.C. § 5201. Further, this
statute is drawn in controversy . . . because the federal statute provides for a ninety (90) day notice
period prior to the filing of any state eviction proceeding; Defendant asserts and alleges that Plaintiff did
not allow the ninety day period to lapse before filing her claim.” Notice of Removal ¶¶ 7-8.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over
matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511
U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s duty to always examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see
Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there
is an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982,
985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court
contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from
state to federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d
925, 927 (9th Cir.1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).
Federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JG
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-5226-GW(CWx)
Date
Title
August 23, 2013
Signet Domain, LLC v. Samuel G. Bailey, et al.
U.S.C. § 1331. A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of
plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
Plaintiff’s complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, a state law claim. Compl.
at 1. Importantly, there is no federal question jurisdiction even if there is a federal defense to the claim
or a counterclaim arising under federal law. See id. at 392-93. As a result, Defendant’s reliance on the
purported defenses under federal law identified in the Notice of Removal cannot serve as the basis for
federal question jurisdiction. This is a simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal
question presented on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint.
The Court thus REMANDS the action to state court, orders the Court Clerk promptly to serve
this order on all parties who have appeared in this action.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
JG
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?
