Keshava LLC v. Goyens

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: February 20, 2025
• Docket: 3:25-cv-01462
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KESHAVA LLC, Case No. 25-cv-01462-WHO

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION 9 v. TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK 10 CHALEDEEANNKA GOYENS, et al., OF JURISDICTION 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 3

12 Plaintiff Keshava LLC instituted an unlawful detainer action in California state court 13 against the defendant, Chaledeeannka Goyens. See Notice of Removal (“Notice”) [Dkt. No. 1]. 14 Goyens removed the case to this court on February 12, 2025, and moved for leave to proceed in 15 forma pauperis. See Dkt. No. 3. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. It is 16 apparent, however, that I lack subject matter jurisdiction over the suit. 17 A defendant may generally remove a case from state court to federal court; but, as with all 18 cases, the federal court must have subject matter jurisdiction over it. See 28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)–(c). 19 The burden is on the removing defendant to establish the basis for subject matter jurisdiction. 20 Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). I have a duty 21 to ascertain whether I have jurisdiction and must remand a case sua sponte if I do not. See 28 22 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 23 Goyen’s notice of removal fails to identify any basis for federal jurisdiction. First, I lack 24 diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. From the face of the notice of removal and state- 25 court complaint seeking removal from a residence in Oakland by a company that is based in 26 California, it is clear that the parties are both California residents. The other potential basis of 27 jurisdiction is federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. I lack federal question 1 It is well-established that state-law unlawful detainer claims do not “arise under” federal law. See, 2 || eg., Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n v. Lopez, No. C 11-00451 WHA, 2011 WL 1465678, at *1 (N.D. 3 |} Cal. Apr. 15, 2011). 4 Because there is no federal jurisdiction over the unlawful detainer Complaint, this case 5 |} must be DISMISSED and REMANDED back to the Alameda County Superior Court. The Clerk 6 shall close the file. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: February 20, 2025 VW.Qe 10 . liam H. Orrick I United States District Judge 12

15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28