Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Flagg v. Jacob

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 15, 2010

OSCAR FLAGG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHARON JACOB, AND DOES 1--5 DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Janis L. Sammartino United States District Judge

ORDER: REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

Defendant Sharon Jacob filed a notice of removal on August 31, 2010. (Doc. No. 1.) A review of the notice of removal indicates that Defendant is not entitled to remove this action.

The removing party bears the burden of establishing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). In evaluating this showing, the Court must "strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted). Therefore, "[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Id. (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).

First, this matter does not satisfy federal question jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer suit and has not raised any federal claims. (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Based on the allegations found in the complaint, this Court finds that there is no federal question as required for federal question jurisdiction.

Second, Defendant has not demonstrated diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff alleges the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.00 and requests damages for past rent due in the amount of $4,500.00 and for the fair rental value of $16.66 per day beginning from September 1, 2010. (Doc. No. 1 at 5, 7.) Based on the allegations found in the complaint, this Court finds that the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000.00 as required for diversity jurisdiction.

In light of these findings, the Court concludes that Defendant has not carried the burden of establishing this Court's jurisdiction. Therefore, this matter is REMANDED to San Diego Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED

20100915

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.