CP IV 8 Olive LLC v. Monica Quintanilla

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: July 1, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01648
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CP IV 8 OLIVE, LLC., Case No. 2:24-cv-01648-SPG-RAO 11 Plaintiff, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO REMAND [ECF NO. 8] 13 v.

14 MONICA QUINTANILLA; and DOES 1

15 through 25, inclusive,

16 Defendant. 17 18 19 Before the Court is Plaintiff CP IV 8 Olive, LLC’s motion to remand to Los 20 Angeles County Superior Court. (ECF No. 8 (“Motion”)). Defendant Monica 21 Quintanilla does not oppose the Motion. The Court has read and considered the matters 22 raised with respect to the Motion and determined that this matter is suitable for decision 23 without oral argument. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L. R. 7-15. For the reasons 24 stated below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and remands this Action to Los 25 Angeles County Superior Court for all further proceedings. 26 27 28 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 On November 7, 2023, Plaintiff filed a form complaint alleging unlawful detainer in 3 the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles against Defendant. (ECF No. 1 4 (“Compl.”) at 10). Plaintiff – an owner and manager of real property – seeks past rent due 5 of $15,269.09 from Defendant for her lease of an apartment at 801 South Olive Street, Unit 6 2508, Los Angeles, California 90014. (Id.). Defendant filed an answer in state court on 7 January 31, 2024, and a jury trial was set for February 29, 2024. (ECF No. 8-1 (“Answer”) 8 at 2). On February 29, 2024, Defendant failed to appear at trial. Because of Defendant’s 9 non-appearance, the state court deemed the jury trial waived and converted the trial to a 10 bench trial. (ECF No. 8-5 at 3). After taking evidence at the uncontested bench trial, the 11 state court belatedly discovered that the matter had been removed to federal court. (Id.). 12 According to ECF, Defendant filed her notice of removal in this Court on February 28, 13 2024, i.e., one day before the state court trial. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff now moves to remand 14 this case back to Los Angeles County Superior Court. (Mot.). 15 II. LEGAL STANDARD 16 The “[f]ederal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Corral v. Select Portfolio 17 Servicing, Inc., 878 F.3d 770, 773 (9th Cir. 2017) (internal citation omitted). Therefore, a 18 removing party must demonstrate that an action falls within the categories of federal 19 subject matter jurisdiction to avoid remand. See Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 20 U.S. 28, 33–34 (2002). Congress has provided that the federal “district courts shall have 21 original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 22 the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The general rule, referred to as the ‘well-pleaded 23 complaint rule,’ is that a civil action arises under federal law for purposes of § 1331 when 24 a federal question appears on the face of the complaint.” City of Oakland v. BP PLC, 969 25 F.3d 895, 903 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 26 (1987)). 27 28 1 III. DISCUSSION 2 Plaintiff challenges Defendant’s removal on two grounds. First, Plaintiff argues that 3 Defendant’s removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1446. Second, Plaintiff argues that 4 there is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Because the Court finds that 5 there is no subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court declines to analysis 6 Plaintiff’s timeliness argument. 7 In determining whether federal question removal is proper, the Ninth Circuit has 8 held that “[a]n action arises under federal law only if federal law ‘creates the cause of 9 action’ or ‘a substantial question of federal law is a necessary element.’” Coeur d’Alene 10 Tribe v. Hawks, 933 F.3d 1052, 1055 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Morongo Band of Mission 11 Indians v. Cal. State Bd. of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1383 (9th Cir. 1988)). Where 12 federal law does not create the cause of action, federal question jurisdiction will lie only 13 where “a federal issue is: (1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and 14 (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance 15 approved by Congress.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 258 (2013). “‘When a claim can 16 be supported by alternative and independent theories—one of which is a state law theory 17 and one of which is a federal law theory—federal question jurisdiction does not attach 18 because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.’” State of Nevada v. Bank of 19 Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 675 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 20 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996)). 21 Here, Plaintiff’s cause of action arises under California law. Plaintiff alleges one 22 cause of action – unlawful detainer – for failure to pay rent or vacate the premises. (Compl. 23 at 11). In filing its Complaint, Plaintiff used a standardized, California State Court Form 24 Complaint. (Id. at 10). As several courts in this district have held, a single claim for 25 unlawful detainer does not invoke this Court’s jurisdiction. See Canterbury Lots 68, LLC 26 v. De La Torre, WL 781974, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Feb.28, 2013) (remanding action where 27 complaint only raised a single cause of action for unlawful detainer); Golden Union 28 Properties, LLC v. Amesquita, 2011 WL 321095, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) 1 ||(remanding case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where complaint contained only an 2 |{unlawful detainer claim); IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 3 ||(C.D. Cal. Jan.13, 2010) (same); Galileo Financial v. Miin Sun Park, No. 09—cv—1660, 4 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept.24, 2009) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim 5 || for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the 6 || face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.’’) 7 CONCLUSION 8 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff's Motion to Remand is GRANTED. This action 9 REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court. 10 11 IT ISSO ORDERED. 12 -— 13 || Dated: July 1, 2024 14 HON. SHERILYN PEACE GARNETT 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28