JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 19-09640 PA (AFMx) Date November 13, 2019 Title Cynthia Joanne Gage v. Robert Harris

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Kamilla Sali-Suleyman Not Reported N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: None None Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Robert Harris (“Defendant”) on November 8, 2019. (Docket No. 1.) Defendant seeks to remove the action filed by plaintiff Cynthia Joanne Gage (“Plaintiff”), which alleges a single state law claim for unlawful detainer. Defendant, who is appearing pro se, asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under

. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v, Guardian Life Ins. Co.,

,

,

(1994). A “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland,

(9th Cir. 1986). Under

, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

,

,

(1987). Under the rule, “federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”

,

,

. If the complaint does not specify whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is “clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle,

(9th Cir. 1996). Thus, plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar,

, 107S.

. “A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense ....”

,

,

(emphasis in original). The only exception to this rule is where plaintiffs federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1987). Here, the underlying Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, which does not arise under federal law. In his Notice of Removal, Defendant alleges only that “[f]ederal question exists because Defendant’s Answer, a pleading that depends on the determination of

JS-6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. CV 19-09640 PA (AFMx) Date November 13, 2019 Title Cynthia Joanne Gage v. Robert Harris Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff's duties under federal law.” (Docket No. 1 § 8 (errors in original).) However, neither a federal defense nor a federal counterclaim forms a basis for removal. See Vaden v. Discover Bank,

,

,

(2009) (“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a suit ‘arises under’ federal law ‘only when the plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].’”). Defendant has therefore failed to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Accordingly, Defendant has not met his burden of showing that jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 19VEUD02625. See

(c). Defendant’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket No. 3) is denied as moot. IT IS SO ORDERED.