Opinion
Case No. 2:14-cv-05026-ODW(RZx)
07-09-2014
ABBEY APT, L.P., Plaintiff, v. JEROME ROBINSON and DOES 1-5, inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On July 3, 2014, Defendant Jerome Robinson removed this unlawful-detainer action to this Court, invoking civil-rights jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. (ECF No. 3.) Having carefully considered the papers filed in conjunction with Robinson's Notice of Removal, the Court finds that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 14U06629.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). But courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and "[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566).
Federal courts have original jurisdiction where an action presents a federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A plaintiff may therefore avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law, and "federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense." Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009); see also Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2009).
Robinson premises his removal on civil rights and federal-question grounds. Robinson contends that this Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 because he refused to pay rent due to oppression and racial discrimination by Plaintiff Abbey Apartments. (Not. of Removal 8.) Robinson further argues that because he experienced oppression as a tenant in a federally-funded housing facility, "there lies profound federal questions as to whether or not [Abbey Apartments] can operate such program, let alone evict [him] for refusing to suffer under the status quo." (Not. of Removal 12.)
But Robinson's grounds for removal are misguided. First, any federal defense raised by Robinson is irrelevant with regard to jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60; Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042-43. Moreover, Abbey Apartments—the owner of the residential property at issue—brought this action against Robinson because he has unlawfully remained in possession of the property after failing to pay rent. (Not. of Removal 6.) An unlawful-detainer action is purely a creature of state—not federal—law. Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) ("Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists."). The Court finds no federal question arising out of the claims brought by Abbey Apartments. Furthermore, removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443 is also improper in this case because Robinson has failed to meet the requirements for removal under the statute. See Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that removing defendants must demonstrate that rights "are given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights," and "that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be supported by reference to a state statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights").
For the reasons discussed above the Court finds that removal was improper in this action and the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 14U06629. The Clerk of the Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
July 9, 2014
/s/_________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cc: order, docket, remand letter to
Los Angeles Superior Court, no. 14U06629