Case 2:23-cv-01939-CJC-KES Document 8 Filed 03/22/23 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:57

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) Case No.: CV 23-01939-CJC (KESx) NAAC 2022-6 LP, ) 13 ) ) 14 ) Plaintiff, ) 15 ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING v. ) CASE 16 ) KAWANNA-SHAWNTAYE GRITNEY ) 17 ) and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) 18 ) ) 19 Defendants. ) ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 23 24 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 25

26 On March 15, 2023, Defendant Kawanna-Shawntaye Gritney removed this 27 unlawful detainer action originally filed in the Superior Court of California, County of 28

-1- Case 2:23-cv-01939-CJC-KES Document 8 Filed 03/22/23 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:58

1 Los Angeles by Plaintiff NAAC 2022-6 LP. (Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal].) Plaintiff 2 asserted that removal was proper based on the existence of federal question subject 3 matter jurisdiction under

. (Id.) For the following reasons, the Court 4 lacks subject matter jurisdiction and hereby sua sponte REMANDS the case to the 5 Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles 6 7 II. DISCUSSION 8 9 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 10 if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. See 28 U.S.C. 11 § 1441(b). Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve 12 questions arising under federal law or (2) are between diverse parties and involve an 13 amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. See

, 1332. Principles of 14 federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal] 15 jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & 16 Gas Corp. v. Sheets,

(1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more 17 jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333

, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). The defendant removing 19 the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court has 20 subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly construed 21 against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) 22 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 23 the first instance.”). 24 25 Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether or 26 not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 27

, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court’s duty to establish subject matter 28 jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.”). Whether subject matter

-2- Case 2:23-cv-01939-CJC-KES Document 8 Filed 03/22/23 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:59

1 jurisdiction exists may be raised by the Court sua sponte at any time, and if it appears that 2 the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to the entry of final 3 judgment, the case must be remanded to state court. See

(c); Fed. R. 4 Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter 5 jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”); GFD, LLC v. Carter,

5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012) (“The court may—indeed must—remand an 7 action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”). 8 9 It is clear that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s 10 Complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law. (See Dkt. 1 at 11 7.) The Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or 12 treaties of the United States.”

. There are no federal claims in 13 Plaintiff’s Complaint. See Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson,

, 1748 14 (2019) (explaining that to evaluate whether a court has original jurisdiction, it evaluates 15 whether the plaintiff’s operative complaint could have been brought originally in federal 16 court). 17 18 While in the Notice of Removal alludes to Defendant as a “counter-complainant” 19 and states that “[t]he case involves 42 U.S. Code 1983 violations under the 4th and 5th 20 amendments of the Bill of Rights by alleged public agents,” (Dkt. 1 at 1), federal question 21 jurisdiction is present only when “a federal question is presented on the face of the 22 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

, 392 23 (1987). Accordingly, a defense or counterclaim based on federal law cannot give rise to 24 federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 10; see also ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. 25 Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality,

, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he 26 existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not 27 on anticipated defenses to those claims.”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp.,

, 1075 28

-3- Case 2:23-cv-01939-CJC-KES Documents Filed 03/22/23 Page 4o0f4 Page ID #:60

1 || (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction 2 ||on a federal court.”). 4 Diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the 5 ||matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 6 costs.”

(a). The amount in controversy requirement has not been met 7 || because the Complaint demands less than $10,000 in damages. (See Dkt. 1 at 7 8 || (“Amount Demanded Does Not Exceed $10,000.00”’].) 10 |} TH. CONCLUSION 11 12 For the foregoing reasons, the case is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court 13 California, County of Los Angeles. 14 1s DATED: March 22, 2023 Ko : je 16 ff 17 CORMAC J. CARNEY 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

A.