Rowland Heights Mobile Estates v. Diana Xuemei Cheung

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 3, 2021
• Docket: 2:21-cv-00316
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

18-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Case No.: 2:21-cv-00316-SB (Ex) Date: 2/3/2021

Title: Rowland Heights Mobile Estates v. Diana Xuemei Cheung, et al.

Present: The Honorable STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR., U.S. District Judge Victor Cruz N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s): Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s): None Appearing None Appearing

Proceedings: SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING CASE

Plaintiff Rowland Heights Mobile Estates (“Plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against Defendants Diana Xuemei Cheung and Ken Meng (together, “Defendants’’) in Los Angeles County Superior Court on June 25, 2020. (See Compl., Dkt. No. 1-1.) Defendants removed the action to federal court on January 13, 2021 on the basis of a federal question. (Not. of Removal, Dkt. No. 1- 1.) In their Notice of Removal, Defendants state they “are flesh and blood, living, breathing, sovereign American Citizens on the land.” (/d.) I. DISCUSSION Removal jurisdiction is based entirely on federal statutory authority. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441-55. A defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts . . . have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, district courts “have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” Whether a claim “arises under” federal law must be determined by reference to the “well-pleaded complaint.” Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Construction Laborers

CV-90 (12/02) CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk VPC

Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 9 (1983). It is not enough for removal purposes that a federal question may arise during the litigation in connection with a defense or counterclaim. Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).

Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts a single cause of action for unlawful detainer under Cal. Civ. Code § 798.56. (See generally Compl.) A single claim for unlawful detainer is insufficient to invoke federal jurisdiction. See Wachovia Mortg., FSB v. Rabb, No. 2:15-cv-03903-ODW (AS), 2015 WL 3454558, at *1 (C.D. Cal. May 29, 2015) (collecting cases).

If the court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction in which a defendant has improperly removed the case, the federal court must remand the case to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Fed. R. Civ. P 12(h)(3). Accordingly, because no federal question exists, the Court REMANDS the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.