Wong v. Dawson

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: March 15, 2021
• Docket: 5:21-cv-01006
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 MOU UN WONG, 8 Case No. 5:21-cv-01006-EJD Plaintiff, 9 SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER v. 10 CHRISTINA K. DAWSON, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 In this removed unlawful detainer action, the Court has reviewed the removed complaint 14 and notice of removal. The Court finds that there is no federal jurisdiction over the state law 15 unlawful detainer action and thus, this case is DISMISSED SUA SPONTE and REMANDED 16 back to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. 17 I. BACKGROUND 18 The removed action (“State Court Action”) was filed in the Superior Court of California 19 for the County of Santa Clara on October 13, 2020 and asserts a claim against Christina K. 20 Dawson, Alex Royappa, Daniel Royappa, and Amol Sinha (collectively “Defendants”), for 21 unlawful detainer under California Code of Civil Procedure §1161(a). See Dkt. No. 1 (Notice of 22 Removal). Plaintiff’s sole claim was for unlawful detainer under state law to obtain possession of 23 a recently foreclosed residential property at 1693 South Mary Ave., Sunnyvale, CA 94087. 24 Plaintiff came into possession of this property through a trustee sale. The complaint alleges that 25 Defendants owes Plaintiff: (1) restitution, (2) damages at the rate of $150.00 per day from October 26 9, 2020, through the date of restitution of possession or the date of judgment,, and (3) costs herein, 27 and further relief as is proper. 1 In the notice of removal Defendants argued jurisdiction is proper based on several federal 2 statutes. Dkt. No. 1 at 2-3. Defendants also assert that removal was proper because the Court has 3 diversity jurisdiction. Defendants removed the action to federal court on February 9, 2021. 4 II. ANALYSIS 5 A. Legal Standard 6 Federal courts have limited subject matter jurisdiction, and may only hear cases falling 7 within their jurisdiction. Generally, a defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court if 8 the action could have been filed originally in federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. The removal 9 statutes are construed restrictively so as to limit removal jurisdiction. Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. 10 v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108−09 (1941). The Ninth Circuit recognizes a “strong presumption 11 against removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks 12 omitted). Any doubts as to removability should be resolved in favor of remand. Matheson v. 13 Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). The defendant bears the 14 burden of showing that removal is proper. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1117 (9th 15 Cir. 2004). Additionally, a district court may remand a case to state court sua sponte if it 16 determines that jurisdiction is lacking. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see Smith v. Mylan, Inc., 761 F.3d 17 1042, 1043 (9th Cir. 2014). 18 B. Removal Was Not Proper Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 19 Federal question jurisdiction exists when the plaintiff’s case arises under federal law. 28 20 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law within the meaning of § 1331 if ‘a well-pleaded 21 complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right 22 to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. 23 Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice 24 Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 689–90 (2006)). Under this “well-pleaded complaint” 25 rule, “the federal question on which jurisdiction is premised cannot be supplied via a defense; 26 rather, the federal question must ‘be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the 27 answer.’” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1086 (9th Cir. 1 2009) (quoting Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 (1974)). 2 The single claim asserted by Plaintiff, for unlawful detainer, does not arise under federal 3 law. See Litton Loan Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) 4 (holding that unlawful detainer action under California Code of Civil Procedure §$1161a did not 5 arise under federal law). Further, Defendant’s reliance on various federal statutes in the notice of 6 removal does not establish the existence of a federal question because these statutes are, at most, 7 || grounds for asserting defenses or counterclaims to Plaintiffs claim. See Provincial Gov’t of 8 Marinduque, 582 F.3d at 1086. 9 C. Diversity Jurisdiction 10 There is also no alternative basis for jurisdiction, such as diversity. Although the civil 11 cover sheet that the Defendants filed upon removing the case to the Court does not give the 12 || parties’ citizenship, the addresses that appear on the parties’ filings indicate that both the Plaintiff g 13 and Defendants reside in California. Diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case and thus, the 14 || action must be remanded. 2 15 || I. CONCLUSION a 16 For the foregoing reasons, the case is DISMISSED SUA SPONTE and REMANDED 3 17 back to the Superior Court of California for the County of Santa Clara. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: March 15, 2021 20 EDWARD J. DAVILA 21 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 || Case No.: 5:21-cv-01006-EJD SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER .