(PS) Huizar v. Lore, No. 2:2012cv01886 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2012)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/10/2012 RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court and that this case be closed. Referred to Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.; Objections due within 14 days. (Yin, K)

Download PDF

(PS) Huizar v. Lore Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 URIEL HUIZAR, 11 12 13 14 15 16 Plaintiff, No. 2:12-cv-1886 MCE DAD PS vs. DIANE LORE, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Defendant. / By Notice of Removal filed July 18, 2012, this unlawful detainer action was 17 removed from the Sacramento County Superior Court by defendant Diane Lore who has filed an 18 application to proceed in forma pauperis and who is proceeding pro se. Accordingly, the matter 19 has been referred to the undersigned for all purposes encompassed by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 It is well established that the statutes governing removal jurisdiction must be 21 “strictly construed against removal.” Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 22 (9th Cir. 1979) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108 (1941)). See also 23 Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002); Provincial Gov’t of Martinduque v. 24 Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if 25 there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 26 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “‘The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction falls on the party 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 invoking removal.’” Harris v. Provident Life & Accident Ins. Co., 26 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2 1994) (quoting Gould v. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 790 F.2d 769, 771 (9th Cir.1986)). See also 3 Provincial Gov’t of Martinduque, 582 F.3d at 1087. Moreover, “the existence of federal 4 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to 5 those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 6 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). Where it appears, as it does here, that the district court lacks subject 7 matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 8 9 10 In removing this action, defendant Diane Lore alleges in a conclusory fashion that “[f]ederal question jurisdiction exists because defendants’ demurrer” implicates “Defendants’ rights and Plaintiffs duties under federal law.” (Notice of Removal (Doc. No. 1) at 3.) 11 It is evident, however, from a reading of plaintiff’s complaint that this is nothing 12 more than a garden-variety unlawful detainer action filed by a property owner against an 13 occupant of real property located in California and that it is based wholly on California law. As 14 such, the complaint does not involve any “claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties 15 or laws of the United States” that would have permitted plaintiff to file this action originally in 16 federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Moreover, it is evident from defendant’s argument that 17 any federal claims in this action arise solely from defendant’s own affirmative defenses and not 18 from the plaintiff’s unlawful detainer complaint. See ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC, 213 F.3d 19 at 1113. Thus, defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing a basis for federal 20 jurisdiction over this action. 21 22 Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be summarily remanded to the Sacramento County Superior Court and that this case be closed. 23 These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States 24 District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 25 fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, defendant may file 26 ///// 2 1 written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. A document presenting 2 objections should be titled “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” 3 DATED: September 10, 2012. 4 5 6 7 8 DAD:6 Ddad1\orders.pro se\huizar1886.ud.f&rs 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.