Opinion
Case No. SA CV 11- 1285 DOC (RNBx)
11-04-2011
ENKS ENTERPRISES INC. AS TRUSTEE FOR MARBURY TRUST #1008 v. TIMOTHY GREVE
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
DOCKET ENTRY
[I hereby certify that this document was served by first class mail or Government messenger service, postage prepaid, to all counsel (or parties) at their respective most recent address of record in this action on this date.]
Deputy Clerk: _________
PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER , JUDGE
+-------------------------------+ ¦JULIE BARRERA ¦Not Present ¦ +----------------+--------------¦ ¦Courtroom Clerk ¦Court Reporter¦ +-------------------------------+
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS:
NONE PRESENT NONE PRESENT
PROCEEDING (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
After reviewing the instant case, the Court is remanding it to Orange County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Remand may be ordered for lack of subject matter jurisdiction or any defect in the removal procedure. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). A defendant may remove a state action only if the plaintiff could have originally filed the action in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441. "The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction." Prize Frize, Inc. v. Matrix (U.S.), Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1999); see Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
On July 27, 2011, Plaintiff filed suit against Defendant for Unlawful Detainer in Orange County Superior Court. On August 26, 2011, Defendant removed this action to this Court. However, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. In the Notice of Removal, Defendant failed to allege that Plaintiff's Complaint alleges or pleads any claim raising a federal question. The face of the Complaint states only one cause of action: Unlawful Detainer. Unlawful Detainer actions arise under state, not federal, law. See Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 1161. Defendant instead alleged that the Court has federal question jurisdiction because Defendant raises federal questions relating to Article III common law issues. However, as the existence of federal question jurisdiction is determined by reference to the Complaint, not to any asserted defenses, Defendant cannot show that the Court has federal question jurisdiction over this action.
Accordingly, this action shall be remanded to Orange County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action.