Irwin F. Roberts v. Ryan Jessup

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: August 20, 2019
• Docket: 5:19-cv-01529
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL Case No. ED CV 19-1529-JFW(KKx) Date: August 20, 2019 Title: Irwin F. Roberts -v- Ryan Jessup, et al.

PRESENT: HONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Shannon Reilly None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO RIVERSIDE SUPERIOR COURT On June 3, 2019, Plaintiff Irwin F. Roberts (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for Unlawful Detainer against Defendants Ryan Jessup and Pam Jessup (“Defendants”) in Riverside Superior Court. On August 15, 2019, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal, alleging that this Court has jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). “Because of the Congressional purpose to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts on removal, the statute is strictly construed, and federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996) (citations and quotations omitted). There is a strong presumption that the Court is without jurisdiction unless the contrary affirmatively appears. See Fifty Associates v. Prudential Insurance Company of America, 446 F.2d 1187, 1190 (9th Cir. 1990). As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Defendants bear the burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Defendants fail to meet their burden of demonstrating that removal is proper. Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges one claim for unlawful detainer under state law. While Defendants allege in their Notice of Removal that the claim arises under federal law, “[a]n unlawful detainer action does not raise a question arising under federal law and so, once removed, must be remanded for lack of S:\JFW\CIVIL CASES\Roberts, Irwin F. 19-1529 ED\MO remand unlawful detainer.wpd Initials of Deputy Clerk sr jurisdiction.” Cooper v. Washington Mut. Bank, 2003 WL 1563999, *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 19, 2003) (internal citation omitted). Accordingly, there is no federal question jurisdiction presented by Plaintiff’s action. For the foregoing reasons, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, this action is REMANDED to Riverside Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). IT IS SO ORDERED.

S:\JFW\CIVIL CASES\Roberts, Irwin F. 19-1529 ED\MO remand unlawful detainer.wpd Initials of Deputy Clerk sr