(UD)(PS) Cliff's New Marina v. Archuleta

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 12, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-00126
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CLIFF’S NEW MARINA, No. 2:24-cv-00126-DJC-KJN PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 FAITH C. ARCHULETA, 15 Defendant. 16 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by Plaintiff 17 Cliff’s New Marina against Defendant Faith C. Archuleta. On Wednesday, January 10, 18 2024, Defendant filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, seeking to remove the 19 action from Sacramento County Superior Court. (Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1).) 20 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 21 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 22 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 23 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 24 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); 25 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 26 2009). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal 27 courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 28 1 jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris 2 USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal 3 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated 4 defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. 5 Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “The strong presumption against 6 removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to 7 state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 8 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is 9 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 10 599 F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 11 F.2d at 566. “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks 12 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see 13 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. 14 § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th 15 Cir. 1997); see also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th 16 Cir. 2004). 17 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the 18 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when 19 a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 20 complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation 21 omitted) (quoting Audette v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 22 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 838; Duncan, 76 23 F.3d at 1485. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily 24 appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided 25 by anything in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant 26 may interpose.” California, 215 F.3d at 1014. Accordingly, “a case may not be 27 removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 28 plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 1 question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Wayne v. 2 DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. 3 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal 4 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or 5 counterclaim, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under federal law.”). 6 Here, Defendant has not shown that removal of this action to this Court is 7 appropriate based on the presence of a federal question. Defendant’s removal notice 8 claims that there is federal question jurisdiction as the Court has jurisdiction over this 9 action under maritime law. (See Notice of Removal at 4–5.) A review of the complaint 10 filed in state court shows that Plaintiff did not raise a federal claim in that complaint 11 therein. (Notice of Removal at 9–24.) Plaintiff’s complaint is a straightforward unlawful 12 detainer action that is based entirely on state law. “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only 13 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 14 complaint.” California, 215 F.3d at 1014. Defendant claims that the action in question 15 involves a “floating house” and that thus maritime law is necessarily implicated by the 16 complaint as the property “is located on the water” of the Sacramento River. (Notice 17 of Removal at 5.) Contrary to Defendant’s contention, the Complaint makes no 18 reference to a boat, houseboat, or any property that is “on the water” and instead 19 alleges unlawful detainer of real property located at River Road, Slip No. C-4, 20 Sacramento, California 95832. See Butler v. Clarendon Am. Ins. Co., 494 F. Supp. 2d 21 1112, 1135–36 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Smith v. Mun. Ct., 202 Cal. App. 3d 685, 689 22 (1988) and stating that a party had “real property interests” in the slip at a harbor); see 23 also Smith, 202 Cal. App. 3d at 689 (stating that a “leasehold interest in his boat slip” is 24 subject to an unlawful detainer action as it is real property). Moreover, the Complaint 25 only includes an unlawful detainer claim; there is no claim brought under maritime 26 law. (See Notice of Removal at 9–24.) As such, there is no federal question presented 27 on the face of the Plaintiff’s complaint and thus federal jurisdiction does not exist in 28 this action. See California, 215 F.3d at 1014. 1 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Sacramento County 2 | Superior Court for all future proceedings. This order resolves all pending motions. 3 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 | Dated: _ January 11, 2024 “Dane A Ch brett Hon. Daniel alabretta / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 19 | □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28