HJ Home Investments, LLC v. Olascoaga-Decampos
Filing
10
ORDER DENYING 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; VACATIN CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE AND REMANDING ACTION. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 8/28/12. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/28/2012)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
HJ HOME INVESTMENTS, LLC,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
No. C 12-04432 JSW
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING
APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN
FORMA PAUPERIS; VACATING
CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE, AND
REMANDING ACTION
v.
12
GRACIELA OLSCOAGA-DECAMPOS,
13
Defendant.
/
14
15
Defendant removed on the basis of federal question. This Court has an independent
16
duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter
17
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)..
18
“[A]ny civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
19
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant ... to the district court of the
20
United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
21
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 7-8 (1983) (citation
22
omitted); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
23
See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). An action
24
originally filed in state court may be removed to federal court only if the district court could
25
have exercised jurisdiction over such action if initially filed there. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a);
26
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The burden of establishing federal
27
jurisdiction for purposes of removal is on the party seeking removal. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co.,
28
372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th Cir. 2004); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1
1992). Moreover, a court must construe the removal statute strictly and reject jurisdiction if
2
there is any doubt regarding whether removal was proper. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480,
3
1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
4
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”)
5
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-
recognizes that the plaintiff is the master of his or her claim. “[H]e or she may avoid federal
8
jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Id. Thus, under the well-pleaded complaint
9
rule, federal-question jurisdiction arises where the “complaint establishes either that federal law
10
creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution
11
For the Northern District of California
pleaded complaint rule.’” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule
7
United States District Court
6
of a substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 27-28.
12
“It is well settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a
13
federal defense, ... even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both
14
parties concede that the federal defense is the only true question at issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S.
15
at 393 (emphasis in original). Based upon the Court’s review of the complaint, Defendant
16
removed the action based upon a federal defense. Plaintiff’s complaint only asserts a state-law
17
claim for unlawful detainer. Therefore, this Court lacks jurisdiction over this case.
18
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY DENIES Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma
19
pauperis, VACATES the case management conference scheduled for January 11, 2013, and
20
REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra Costa,
21
Delta-Pittsburg Judicial Division.
22
IT IS SO ORDERED.
23
24
Dated: August 28, 2012
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
25
26
27
28
2
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
FOR THE
3
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
HJ HOME INVESTMENTS, LLC,
5
Case Number: CV12-04432 JSW
Plaintiff,
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
v.
7
GRACIELA OLSCOAGA-DECAMPOS et al,
8
Defendant.
9
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
12
13
/
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District
Court, Northern District of California.
That on August 28, 2012, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said
copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing
said envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle
located in the Clerk's office.
14
15
16
17
Graciela Olascoaga-Decampos
2028 Crater Peak Way
Antioch, CA 94531
18
19
20
Dated: August 28, 2012
Richard W. Wieking, Clerk
By: Jennifer Ottolini, Deputy Clerk
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
