1 2 3 4 5 6 JS-6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH EVARISTO AND CATHERINE ) Case No. CV 25-0875 FMO (KESx) EVARISTO, AS TRUSTEES OF THE ) EVARISTO FAMILY TRUST DATED ) MAY 4, 2016, ) 13 ) ORDER REMANDING ACTION Plaintiffs, ) 14 ) V. ) 15 ) AINA DUMLAO, et al., ) 16 ) Defendants. ) □□ □ 18 On January 31, 2025, defendants Aina Dumlao and Bru Muller (“defendants”), having been sued by Joseph Evaristo and Catherine Evaristo, as Trustees of the Evaristo Family Trust Dated May 4, 2016 (“plaintiff”) in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, removed that action on federal question jurisdiction grounds pursuant to

and 1441. (See Dkt. 1, Notice of Removal of Action (“NOR”) at 2-8). 23 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power authorized 24 || by Constitution and statute[.]” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,

, 114 25|| S.Ct. 1673, 1675 (1994). The courts are presumed to lack jurisdiction unless the contrary appears 26 || affirmatively from the record. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 342 n. 3, 126 27|| S.Ct. 1854, 1861 (2006). Federal courts have a duty to examine jurisdiction sua sponte before 28 || proceeding to the merits of a case, see Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co.,

, 119

1| S.Ct. 1563, 1569 (1999), “even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

,

(2006). 3 “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and a suit commenced in a state court 4|| must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.” Syngenta 5|| Crop Protection, Inc. v. Henson,

,

(2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). Where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes, unless 7| otherwise stated, are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. See

Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district 9] courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the 10 || defendants, to the district court[.]”

(a); see Dennis v. Hart,

(9th Cir. 2013) (same). A removing defendant bears the burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2006) (per 13} curiam) (noting the “longstanding, near-canonical rule that the burden on removal rests with the removing defendant”); Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of 16 || establishing that removal is proper.”) (internal quotation marks omitted). Moreover, if there is any 17 || doubt regarding the existence of subject matter jurisdiction, the court must resolve those doubts in favor of remanding the action to state court. See Gaus,

(“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). 20 “Under the plain terms of § 1441 (a), in order properly to remove [an] action pursuant to that provision, [the removing defendants] must demonstrate that original subject-matter jurisdiction lies 22 || in the federal courts.” Syngenta Crop Protection,

,

. Failure to do 23 || so requires that the case be remanded, as “[s]ubject matter jurisdiction may not be waived, and. .. the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction.” Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass'n, Inc. 25 || v. Homestead Ins. Co.,

(9th Cir. 2003). Indeed, “[i]f at any time before final 26 || judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 27 || remanded.”

(c); see Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co.,

, 1194 n. 2 (9th Cir. 1988) (“It is elementary that the subject matter jurisdiction of the district court is not a 95

1|| waivable matter and may be raised at anytime by one of the parties, by motion or in the 2|| responsive pleadings, or sua sponte by the trial or reviewing court.”); Washington v. United Parcel 3] Serv., Inc.,

, *1 (C.D. Cal. 2009) (a district court may remand an action where 4|| the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction either by motion or sua sponte). 5 The court's review of the NOR and the attached state court Complaint makes clear that this court does not have jurisdiction over the instant matter. In other words, plaintiffs could not have originally brought this action in federal court on the basis of federal question jurisdiction. The state court Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, (see Dkt. 1, NOR, Exh. 9} B(Complaint for Unlawful Detainer)), and discloses no federal statutory or constitutional question that would support federal question jurisdiction. (See, generally, Dkt. 1, Exh. B (Complaint for Unlawful Detainer)); see also Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley,

, *2 (C.D. Cal. 12 || 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); see also Indymac Fed. Bank., F.S.B. v. Ocampo,

, *2 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (“No federal claim is alleged in the Complaint,” where “[t]he Complaint contains a single cause of action for unlawful 15|| detainer.”). To the extent defendants’ defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on alleged violations of federal law, (see Dkt. 1, NOR at 2-8), those defenses do not provide a basis 17 || for federal question jurisdiction. It is well-settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, 19|| and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” 20| Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

,

(1987). Moreover, defendants’ contention that the action is preempted by their own federal action is without merit. Thus, there is no federal question jurisdiction. 23 In short, there is no subject matter jurisdiction. 24 This order is not intended for publication. Nor is it intended to be included in or 25 || submitted to any online service such as Westlaw or Lexis. 26 CONCLUSION 27 Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that: 28 1. The above-captioned action shall be remanded to the Superior Court of the State of

1 California for the County of Los Angeles for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 2

(c). 3 2. The Clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court. 4 Dated this 19th day of February, 2025. 5 /s/ Fernando M. Olguin 6 United States District Judge 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28