Joanna Ardalan v. Gabriela Borchardt

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: March 29, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-02540
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT fe) MARCH 29 2021 3 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 By: _ Var DEPUTY 5 ° JS-6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | JOANNA ARDALAN, Plaintiff Case No. CV 21-02540-FMO (RAOx)

13 Wi ORDER REMANDING ACTION 14 | GABRIELA BORCHARDT, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 V7 18 I. 19 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 70 In June 2020, Plaintiff Joanna Ardalan filed an action for breach of contract, >] negligence, and unjust enrichment in Los Angeles County Superior Court seeking a declaratory judgment and money damages against Defendants Josephine Borchardt, 73 Genevieve Borchardt, Francesca Borchardt, and Gabriela Borchardt, and Does | to 10 (“Defendants”). Notice of Removal, Exh. 1 (Summons and Complaint 95 || (Complaint”)). Dkt. No. 1. 26 Plaintiff alleged that, in October 2019, Defendants Josephine and Genevieve Borchardt signed an agreement to lease Plaintiffs real property (“property’’), located in Los Angeles, California, and that all named Defendants thereafter resided

1 || in the property. Complaint at J 2-5, 7, 9-11, 42, 53, and Exh. A. Plaintiff further 2 || alleged that Defendants repeatedly failed to pay rent on time and made numerous, 3 || often groundless, complaints about the condition of the property but then obstructed 4 || Plaintiff's ability to remedy the alleged issues. /d. at J] 11-34. According to 5 || Plaintiff, in May 2020, Defendants announced that they would terminate the lease 6 || pursuant to California Civil Code § 1942 (providing for termination by lessee 7 || where conditions are uninhabitable) but did not vacate the property. Jd. at □□□ 35-53. 8 On March 23, 2021, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal (“Removal”) 9 || invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2 (alleging federal 10 || jurisdiction pursuant to U.S.C § 1331 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983). Defendants allege that 11 || this Court has jurisdiction under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 12 || Fourteenth Amendment because the state court has made improper rulings and 13 || exhibited bias during the proceedings in Plaintiff's case in favor of Plaintiff and 14 || against Defendants based on Defendants’ pro se status and because they are women. 15 || Id. at 3-8. Defendants have also submitted a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 16 || Dkt. No. 3. 17 II. 18 DISCUSSION 19 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 20 || jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 21 || Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 22 || 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 23 || jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 24 || Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 25 || obvious jurisdictional issue. See Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 26 || F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 27 || to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 28 || when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal

1 || citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 2 || bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 3 || 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 4 || jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 5 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 6 || 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, 7 || that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 8 || federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 9 || provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 10 || arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331. 11 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 12 || clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 13 |) under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction 14 || is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 15 || jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 16 || plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 17 || 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Bd.2d 318 (1987). Here, the Complaint alleges 18 || only straightforward causes of action for breach of contract, negligence, and unjust 19 || enrichment under California law. Although “a claim that seemingly rests solely on 20 || state law may nonetheless be removable” where federal law is found to have 21 || preempted state law, see Galvez v. Kuhn (9th Cir. 1991) 933 F.2d 773, 776 (9th Cir. 22 || 1991), there is no basis for finding preemption in the instant case. Because □□□□□□□□□□ 23 || complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, 24 || the Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.! °° 1 Although 28 U.S.C. § 1443 on its face appears to provide an avenue for removal 26 || of a case commenced in state court “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot 47 || enforce in [state court] a right under any law providing for equal civil rights,” that statute does not entitle Defendants to removal here. See, e.g., Inland Valley 28 || Development Agency v. Patel, 116 Fed. Appx. 98, 100 (9th Cir. 2004) (finding

l Il. 2 . CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 4 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 7 || DATED: March 29, 2021 8 9 /s/ FERNANDO M. OLGUIN 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 1] 12 13 14 15 16 V7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 || allegations that defendant “is unable to obtain a fair trial in a particular state court” insufficient to support removal pursuant to section 1443(1)); see also People of State of Cal. v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970) (per curiam) (rejecting 27 || argument that Fourteenth Amendment provides basis for removal pursuant to section 1443). 28