Kenneth Tokita v. Wesley Bush

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 13, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-09459
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 JS6 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH TOKITA, Case No. CV 21-09459-CAS (RAO)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION 13 v. AND DENYING APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT 14 WESLEY BUSH, WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS 15 Defendant. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 On September 22, 2021, Plaintiff Kenneth Tokita filed an unlawful detainer 20 action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendant Wesley Bush. See 21 Dkt. No. 1 (“Notice of Removal”) at 5-10.1 Defendant is assertedly the occupant of 22 real property owned by Plaintiff and located in Torrance, California. Id. at 7-8. 23 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant has failed to comply after being served a 15-day 24 notice to pay rent or quit and seeks damages and fees. Id. at 8, 10. 25 \\\ 26

27 1 For the sake of clarity, the Court refers to the page numbers inserted by the 28 Electronic Case Filing system. 1 Defendant filed a Notice of Removal on December 7, 2021, invoking the 2 Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 2, Dkt. No. 1-1 at 1. Defendant also filed 3 an application to proceed without prepaying fees or costs. Dkt. No. 3. 4 II. 5 DISCUSSION 6 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 7 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 8 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 9 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 10 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 11 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 12 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 13 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 14 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 15 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 16 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 17 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 18 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 19 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 20 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 21 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441 because the action “originally could have been filed in 22 this Court[.]” Notice of Removal at 2, 3. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, 23 that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the 24 federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1331 25 provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions 26 arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” See id. § 1331. 27 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the Complaint makes 28 clear that this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the instant matter 1 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction 2 is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 3 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the 4 plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 5 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed.2d 318 (1987). Here, there is no federal question 6 apparent from the face of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple 7 unlawful detainer cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10- 8 8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful 9 detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac 10 Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 11 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack 12 of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful 13 detainer claim). 14 There is no merit to Defendant’s contention that federal question jurisdiction 15 exists because his demurrer in superior court depends on the “determination of 16 Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” Notice of Removal at 2. 17 Even if the Court assumes that the rights in question arise under federal law, it is well 18 settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal 19 defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if 20 both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” 21 Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2430, 96 L. Ed. 318 22 (1987). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses to the unlawful detainer action are 23 based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for 24 federal question jurisdiction. See id. Because Plaintiff’s complaint does not present 25 a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled, the Court lacks jurisdiction 26 under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.2 27 2 Defendant does not contend that subject matter jurisdiction exists based on diversity 28 of citizenship. 1 III. 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 FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s application to proceed in 6 || district court without prepaying fees or costs is DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 | DATED: 12/10/2021 poe

ll UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 |] cc: LASC, Ingelwood, 21TWUD005 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28