From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Quinn Crossing, LLC v. Leddy

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 28, 2021
2:21-cv-01745-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2021)

Opinion

2:21-cv-01745-KJM-KJN

09-28-2021

Quinn Crossing, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Adriel Leddy, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Defendant Adriel Leddy, who appears pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from Solano County Superior Court. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. Leddy has also moved to proceed in forma pauperis. See Mot., ECF No. 2. The court has reviewed the complaint and notice of removal and has determined on its own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is thus remanded to the state court.

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction. First, under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Second, under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are completely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Here, the parties are not diverse, and the complaint includes no claims arising under federal law. See generally Compl., Notice of Removal Ex. A, ECF No. 1. Leddy argues this court has federal question jurisdiction “because Defendant's demurrer . . . depend[s] on the determination of Defendant's rights and Plaintiffs duties under federal law.” Id. ¶ 10. Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

A federal district court may remand a case on its own motion where a defendant has not established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). This action is thus remanded to the Solano County Superior Court.

The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.

The Clerk's Office is directed to close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Quinn Crossing, LLC v. Leddy

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 28, 2021
2:21-cv-01745-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2021)
Case details for

Quinn Crossing, LLC v. Leddy

Case Details

Full title:Quinn Crossing, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Adriel Leddy, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 28, 2021

Citations

2:21-cv-01745-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal. Sep. 28, 2021)