Orchard Terrace Estates, LLC v. Cortez et al, No. 1:2015cv00075 - Document 7 (E.D. Cal. 2015)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that this action be remanded to State Court. Objections due within 30 days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/23/2015. (Hernandez, M)

Download PDF

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ORCHARD TERRACE ESTATES, LLC, Plaintiff, 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ACTION BE REMANDED TO STATE COURT v. 13 14 Case No. 1:15-cv-00075-GEB-SAB EDISON V. CORTEZ, et al., 15 OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS Defendants. 16 17 On January 16, 2015, Defendants Edison V. Cortez and Severina G. Cortez 18 (“Defendants”) filed the notice of removal in this action. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff Orchard Terrace 19 Estates, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed the original complaint in the Superior Court of California for the 20 County of Merced. The original complaint raised a cause of action for unlawful detainer against 21 Defendants. Defendants removed the action to this Court and contend that jurisdiction exists 22 under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 23 For the reasons set forth below, the Court finds that jurisdiction does not exist over this 24 action and recommends that the action be remanded back to state court. 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 1 1 I. 2 SUA SPONTE DISMISSAL FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM AND LACK OF JURISDICTION 3 District courts may dismiss a claim sua sponte under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 5 12(b)(6) if the Court gives notice of its intention to dismiss and afford plaintiffs an opportunity to 1 6 at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion. Lee v. City of Los 7 Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 683 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Omar v. Sea-Land Serv., Inc., 813 F.2d 8 986, 991 (9th Cir. 1987); Wong v. Bell, 642 F.2d 359, 362 (9th Cir. 1981)). Moreover, district 9 courts have authority to dismiss actions sua sponte for lack of jurisdiction. Franklin v. State of 10 Or., State Welfare Division, 662 F.2d 1337, 1342 (9th Cir. 1981). “[F]ederal courts are without 11 power to entertain claims otherwise within their jurisdiction if they are so attenuated and 12 unsubstantial as to be absolutely devoid of merit” and are “obviously frivolous.” Hagans v. 13 Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 536-37 (1974) (internal quotations and citations omitted). 14 II. 15 DISCUSSION In this case, Plaintiff brought an unlawful detainer action against Defendants under 16 17 California state law. Defendants’ notice of removal contends that federal question jurisdiction 18 exists over this action, but makes no effort to identify any federal issues which arise under 19 Plaintiff’s complaint. District courts have original jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the 20 21 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The well-pleaded22 complaint rule has long governed whether a case ‘arises under’ federal law for purposes of § 23 1331.” Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002). 24 “[F]ederal jurisdiction generally exists ‘only when a federal question is presented on the face of 25 the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.’” Id. (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 26 386, 392 (1987) (italics in original). “The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or 27 28 1 Through these Findings and Recommendations, the Court gives Defendants notice of its intention to remand. Defendants have an opportunity to submit a written memorandum in opposition by filing objections to these Findings and Recommendations. 2 1 she may avoid federal jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 2 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Moreover, “[i]t is a ‘long-settled understanding that the 3 mere presence of a federal issue in a state cause of action does not automatically confer federal4 question jurisdiction.’” Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., 340 F.3d 1033, 1040 5 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 6 (1986)). 7 Plaintiff’s complaint for unlawful detainer is devoid of any federal issues. See First 8 Northern Bank of Dixon v. Hatanaka, No. 2:11-cv-02976 MCE KJN PS, 2011 WL 6328713, at 9 *3 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2011) (“Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a 10 federal question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal 11 question jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.”). Accordingly, the Court finds that 12 jurisdiction does not exist over this action and the action should be remanded back to state court. 13 III. 14 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 15 The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, it is HEREBY 16 RECOMMENDED that this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California for the 17 County of Merced. 18 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the district judge assigned to this 19 action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and this Court’s Local Rule 304. Within thirty (30) 20 days of service of this recommendation, any party may file written objections to these findings 21 and recommendations with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be 22 captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” The district 23 judge will review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 636(b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may 25 / / / 26 / / / 27 / / / 28 / / / 3 1 result in the waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) 2 (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: January 23, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4

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.