Harbor Property Management Inc. v. Maurice McKnight

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES — GENERAL Case No. 2:25-cv-01126-CAS-JCx Date February 19, 2025 Title Harbor Property Management Inc. v. Maurice McKnight et al eee CHRISTINAA SNYDER Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION On November 19, 2024, plaintiff Harbor Property Management, Inc. (“plaintiff”) filed this unlawful detainer action against defendants Maurice McKnight, Nila McKnight, and Does 1-10 (“defendants”) in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Dkt. 1 at 7.

On February 10, 2025, defendant Maurice McKnight removed the case to this Court. Id. at 1-2. Maurice McKnight concurrently filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. 2. Maurice McKnight asserts that this Court has jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question. Dkt. | at 3 (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1441).

It appears that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The law is clear that “[u|nlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court.”

Federal Nat’] Mort. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82300, *6 (E.D. Cal. Jul.

27, 2011); Deutsche Bank Nat’] Trust Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”).

Here, the only claim asserted by plaintiff is for unlawful detainer against defendants. See dkt. 1 at 7. Accordingly, defendants are hereby ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, in writing, on or before March 6, 2025, why this case should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

00 : 00 Initials of Preparer CMI