1 2 3 . 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 || WISEMOUNT PROPERTY, INC., Case No.: 22-cv-353-JO-AHG Plaintitt,| ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR 13 || Vv. LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 14 || MARTYJOYCE ILA STOKES, DNEAN | JURISDICTION 15 STOKES-GUADAGNI, RON ADCOCK, and DOES 1-50, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 On January 19, 2022, Plaintiff Wisemount Property, Inc. (“Plaintiff’ □□ 20 ||“Wisemount”) filed an unlawful detainer action against Defendants MartyJoyce Ila Stoke: 21 ||and DNean Stokes-Guadagni in California Superior Court. Dkt. 1-2 at 6. On March 16 22 ||2022, Defendants, proceeding pro se, removed this action to federal court. Dkt. 1. □□□□ 23 ||notice of removal asserted that federal question jurisdiction exists because Wisemoun 24 || violated a bankruptcy stay by filing this unlawful detainer action. After the stay was lifted 25 Plaintiff sought a remand of this action on the ground that this Court lacks subject matte: 26 jurisdiction. Subsequently, the bankruptcy case was closed. 27 Pursuant to

(a), defendants removing a complaint from state cour 28 || “must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies in federal courts.” Syngentc

1 || Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson,

(2002). “The presence or absence of federal- 2 || question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that 3 || federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of [a] 4 ||properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

(1987) 5 || Neither federal defenses nor counterclaims give rise to federal question jurisdiction. See 6 || Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust,

(1983). 7 Here, the complaint filed by Plaintiff in state court pleads only one cause of action 8 ||for unlawful detainer. Dkt. 1 at 2, 15-17. A cause of action for unlawful detainer arises 9 || under state law and does not require resolution of a significant question of federal law. 10 Ralph Partners IT, LLC v. Tate,

, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 1, 2018) 11 (collecting cases). Because the removed complaint presents no federal question on its face. 12 Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this case, despite the presence 13 || of peripheral issues such as the purported violation of a bankruptcy stay. Moreover, in this 14 || case, the bankruptcy case has now been dismissed and the stay lifted. 15 Neither does diversity jurisdiction permit removal of this case. Wisemount is ¢ 16 || California corporation, Dkt. 1-2 at 6, and it appears Defendants are residents of California 17 || based on the address they list on their notice of removal and their answers filed in state 18 court. See, e.g., Dkt. 1 at 1, 2; Dkt. 1-2 at 20-24, 27-32. Moreover, Defendants do not 19 dispute that they are California citizens in their brief opposing remand. See Dkt. 4 20 ||Removal is, therefore, not warranted on the basis of diversity citizenship among the parties.

(b); Lincoln Property Co. v. Roche,

(2005) (removal is 22 || possible only where there is complete diversity between the parties and no defendant is □ 23 citizen of the forum state). Because the Court has no basis for subject matter jurisdiction, 24 Court REMANDS this case to state court. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. ) 26 ||Dated: 10/24/22 a ¢ Hon. Jinsdok Ohta United States District Judge 28