From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Advanced Grp. 92-5, LP v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 8, 2016
Case No. CV 16-8805 SVW (SSx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016)

Opinion

Case No. CV 16-8805 SVW (SSx)

12-08-2016

ADVANCED GROUP 92-5, LP, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN WALKER, DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants


ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court summarily because Defendant removed it improperly.

On November 28, 2016, Defendant Adrian Walker, having been sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, filed a Notice Of Removal of that action to this Court and also presented an application to proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has denied the latter application under separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.

Simply stated, this action could not have been originally filed in federal court because the complaint does not competently allege facts supporting either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563 (2005). Defendant's Notice of Removal asserts that "[f]ederal question exists because Defendant's Demurrer, a pleading depend on the determination of Defendant's rights and Plaintiff's duties under federal law." (Notice Of Removal at 3). These allegations are inadequate to confer federal question jurisdiction. See Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808 (1986) ("A defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.").

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, 275 Magnolia Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: 12/8/16

/s/_________

STEPHEN V. WILSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Advanced Grp. 92-5, LP v. Walker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Dec 8, 2016
Case No. CV 16-8805 SVW (SSx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016)
Case details for

Advanced Grp. 92-5, LP v. Walker

Case Details

Full title:ADVANCED GROUP 92-5, LP, Plaintiff, v. ADRIAN WALKER, DOES 1 TO 10…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Dec 8, 2016

Citations

Case No. CV 16-8805 SVW (SSx) (C.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2016)