Omni Broadway Hill Development, LP v. Eliana Lucero

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL Case No. 2:26-cv-06126-CAS-DSRx Date July 14, 2026 Title Omni Broadway Hill Development, LP v. Eliana Lucero

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION On April 29, 2026, plaintiff Omni Broadway Hill Development LP (“plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against defendant Eliana Lucero (“defendant”) in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1 at 5. Lucero, pro se, removed the case to this Court on June 5, 2026. Id. at 1. Lucero concurrently filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. Lucero asserts that this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question. Dkt. 1 at 2 (citing the “Protecting Tenants Moratorium Act”). On July 13, 2026, plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 10. It appears that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Lucero argues that a federal question exists because her answer depends on the determination of her rights and plaintiff's duties under federal law. Dkt. 1 at 3. However, the law is clear that “[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court.” Federal Nat’l Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jul. 27, 2011): Deutsche Bank Nat’! Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”). A defendant’s attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal must fail. McAtee v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007). Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendant. See dkt. 1 at 5-10. Accordingly, the Court appears to lack subject matter jurisdiction. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300 at *6.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL Case No. 2:26-cv-06126-CAS-DSRx Date July 14, 2026 Title Omni Broadway Hill Development, LP v. Eliana Lucero

Accordingly, Lucero is hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before July 28, 2026, why this case should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court. The Court will consider the timely filing of Lucero’s opposition to plaintiff's motion for remand, dkt. 10, as a satisfactory response to this Order to Show Cause.! IT IS SO ORDERED. 00 : 00 Initials of Preparer OM

1 Pursuant to the district’s local rules, defendant Lucero’s opposition shall be filed not later than July 27, 2026, twenty-one days before the date designated for the hearing of the motion. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-9; 7-11.