Bire II LLC v. Helen Horwich

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: October 25, 2023
• Docket: 8:23-cv-01977
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION

11 BIRE II LLC and HIGH POINT ) Case No.: SACV 23-01977-CJC (JDEx) ) 12 HOLDINGS, LLC, ) ) 13 ) Plaintiffs, ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 14 ) CASE v. ) 15 ) ) 16 HELEN HORWICH and DOES 1-5, ) inclusive, ) 17 ) ) 18 Defendant. ) ) 19 ) 20 Plaintiffs Bire II LLC and High Point Holdings, LLC filed this unlawful detainer 21 action in state court on February 24, 2023. (See Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter 22 “NOR”] ¶ 17, Ex. 1 [First Amended Complaint filed April 3, 2023].) Defendant Helen 23 Horwich, acting pro se, filed an answer in state court on September 19, 2023. (Id. Ex. 3.) 24 She then removed the case to this Court on October 20, 2023. (Dkt. 1.) 25

26 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 27 if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1441. Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether 2 or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 3 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court’s duty to establish subject 4 matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.”). They have subject 5 matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions arising under federal law or 6 (2) are between diverse parties and involve an amount in controversy that exceeds 7 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Principles of federalism and judicial economy 8 require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits 9 which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 10 109 (1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its 11 jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (internal quotations omitted). The defendant removing the action to federal court bears 13 the burden of establishing that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction, and the 14 removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 15 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt 16 as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). A “court may—indeed must—remand 17 an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC 18 v. Carter, 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). 19 20 The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiffs’ First 21 Amended Complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law. 22 (Dkt. 1, Ex. 1.) It does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or 23 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 24 139 S. Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019). Defendant appears to contend that there are constitutional 25 violations at issue, (NOR at 1–2), but her potential defenses or counterclaims against 26 Plaintiffs are not enough to invoke this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. See Holmes 27 Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) 1 counterclaims); ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 2 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he existence of federal jurisdiction depends 3 solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those 4 claims.”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (similar). 5 6 Next, even if there is diversity jurisdiction as Defendant contends, (NOR at 2–4), 7 Defendant may not remove this case based on diversity jurisdiction because she herself is 8 a local defendant. “A civil action otherwise removable” based on diversity jurisdiction 9 “may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and served as 10 defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1441(b)(2); see Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 393 F.3d 867, 870 (9th 12 Cir. 2004). “This forum defendant rule reflects the belief that [federal] diversity 13 jurisdiction is unnecessary because there is less reason to fear state court prejudice 14 against the defendants if one or more of them is from the forum state.” Spencer, 393 F.3d 15 at 870 (citation and quotes omitted). Defendant concedes that she is a citizen of 16 California, (NOR ¶¶ 12, 14), so she may not remove this case based on diversity 17 jurisdiction. 18 19 Contrary to Defendant’s argument, this is also not a proper “civil rights removal.” 20 (NOR at 11.) 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) provides that a defendant may remove a civil action 21 commenced in state court if she “is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a 22 right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United 23 States[.]” The Supreme Court has established a two-prong test to determine whether 24 removal is proper under § 1443(1). “First, it must appear that the right allegedly denied 25 the removal petitioner arises under a federal law ‘providing for specific civil rights stated 26 in terms of racial equality,’” rather than a constitutional or statutory provision of general 27 applicability or pursuant to a statute that does not protect specifically against racial 1 ||““Second, it must appear . . . that the removal petitioner is ‘denied or cannot enforce’ the 2 ||specified federal rights ‘in the courts of (the) State.’” Jd. This “normally requires that 3 ||the ‘denial be manifest in a formal expression of state law,’ such as a state legislative or 4 constitutional provision, “rather than a denial first made manifest in the trial of the case.”” 5 || (citations omitted). Defendant has failed to demonstrate this action falls within the 6 |}ambit of § 1443(1). She has identified neither a “federal law ‘providing for specific civil 7 ||rights stated in terms of racial equality,’” rather than a law of general applicability, id., 8 ||nor “a California statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state 9 || court to ignore [her] federal civil rights,” Wong v. Kracksmith, Inc., 764 F. App’x 583, 10 ||584 (9th Cir. 2019) (mem.). 11 12 Finally, it also appears that Defendant’s removal was untimely. A defendant must 13 remove a civil case within thirty days of being served. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Though 14 || the Court does not know exactly when Defendant was served, it is clear that she removed 15 || after this deadline because she removed the case more than thirty days after she filed an 16 || answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint in state court. 17 18 Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to Orange County 19 || Superior Court. 20 21 DATED: — October 25, 2023 Ko fe 9 ff TS 23 CORMAC J. CARNEY 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28