“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”
How later courts described this case
- “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:19-cv-06410-GW-FFM Date September 9, 2019
Title Mayallpostan, LLC v. Brown, et al.
Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Javier Gonzalez None Present
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT
On July 24, 2019, defendants Loretta Brown and Nathaniel Brown, Jr. (“Defendants”), both in
pro per, removed to this Court this unlawful detainer action filed in Los Angeles County Superior Court
by plaintiff Mayallpostan, LLC (“Plaintiff”). This Court is obligated to consider its subject matter
jurisdiction in every case before it. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). That
jurisdiction is clearly lacking here.
Defendants assert that this Court has federal question jurisdiction. Specifically, they assert that
defendant Nathaniel Brown, Jr. (“Nathaniel”) “resides in the dwelling which gives rise to this litigation
and is a disabled man within the meaning of the Americans with Disabilities Act . . . which is a federal
law. Furthermore, Nathaniel is being subject to allegations which involve a federal question, therefore[]
it is proper for this case to be litigated in the federal court.” Docket No. 1, at 2:27-3:3; see also
Declaration of Loretta Brown, {J 3-4.
Federal courts possess limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congressional statute. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.,
511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Federal courts operate under the presumption that they do not have
jurisdiction, and the party claiming federal jurisdiction bears the responsibility of proving otherwise.
See id. (citing Turner v. Bank of N. Am., 4 U.S. (4 Dall.) 8, 11 (1799); McNutt v. Gen Motors Acceptance
Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 182-83 (1936)). Additionally, “[t}]he defendant bears the burden of establishing
that removal is proper” and “[t]he removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.”
Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing
Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) and California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy,
Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004)); see also Gaus y. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)
(“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.”) (omitting internal citations).
Initials of Preparer JG
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No. 2:19-cv-06410-GW-FFM Date September 9, 2019
Title Mayalipostan, LLC v. Brown, et al.
It is the face of the plaintiff's pleading that a federal court examines in attempting to discern
jurisdiction. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). As noted previously, this is an
unlawful detainer action. Plaintiff asserts no claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act or any
other federal law. Any defenses or counterclaims (and any federal issues/questions Defendants might
raise therein or thereby) are irrelevant to the question of this Court’s jurisdiction. See id. at 392-93;
Vaden y. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822
(9th Cir. 1985); see also Docket No. 1, at pg. 22 of 32 (Unlawful Detainer Answer stating, as an
affirmative defense, that Nathaniel “‘is the disabled son of Nathaniel Brown”).
Given the undeniable absence of federal jurisdiction, the Court remands the matter to Los
Angeles County Superior Court. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. vy. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985
(9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity to respond when a court
contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal citations),
Deputy Clerk
Initials of Preparer JG