Case Information
*1 JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA EISENMAN FAMILY TRUST, et al., CASE NUMBER: 8:19-cv-02079-DOC (JDEx) Plaintiff v. OUDREE ELLIS, ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT Defendant(s).
The Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the Orange County of for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as set forth below. “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (quoting Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 280 (1918)). Generally, where Congress has acted to create a right of removal, those statutes are strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Id.; Nevada v. Bank of Am. Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 667 (9th Cir. 2012); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).
Unless otherwise expressly provided by Congress, a defendant may remove “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Dennis v. Hart, 724 F.3d 1249, 1252 (9th Cir. 2013). The removing defendant bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Abrego Abrego v.
*3 enactment protecting equal racial civil rights," Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 999 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation omitted), defendant(s) has not identified any "state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights" or pointed "to anything that suggests that the state court would not enforce [defendant's] civil rights in the state court proceedings." Id. (citation omitted); see also Bogart v. California, 355 F.2d 377, 381-82 (9th Cir. 1966) (holding that conclusionary statements lacking any factual basis cannot support removal under § 1443(1)). Nor does § 1443(2) provide any basis for removal, as it "confers a privilege of removal only upon federal officers or agents and those authorized to act with or for them in affirmatively executing duties under any federal law providing for equal civil rights" and on state officers who refuse to enforce discriminatory state laws. City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824 & 824 n.22 (1966). ✔ The underlying action is an unlawful detainer proceeding, arising under and governed by the laws of the State of California. Removing defendant(s) claims that 28 U.S.C. § 1334 confers jurisdiction on this Court, but the underlying action does not arise under Title 11 of the United States Code. ✔
Diversity jurisdiction is lacking, and/or this case is not removable on that basis: ✔ Every defendant is not alleged to be diverse from every plaintiff. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). ✔ The Complaint does not allege damages in excess of $75,000, and removing defendant(s) has not plausibly alleged that the amount in controversy requirement has been met. Id.; see Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014). ✔ The underlying unlawful detainer action is a limited civil action that does not exceed $25,000. ✔ Removing defendant(s) is a citizen of California. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
Other: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be, and hereby is, REMANDED to the Superior Court of California listed above, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: November 4, 2019 David O. Carter United States District Judge