The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Cormac J. Carney, United States District Judge
Michelle Urie N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT: None Present None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT [filed 1/7/11]
Plaintiff Ingino Fund CA, LLC ("Ingino") filed suit in California state court alleging the state law claim of unlawful detainer and seeking less than $10,000 in damages. (Notice of Removal, Ex. 1.) Defendant Kathleeen Marie Saulnier removed this action from state court on January 7, 2011 alleging federal question and diversity jurisdiction. (Notice of Removal at 2.)
In a case removed from state court, a district court must remand the case to state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §1447(c). A federal court has subject matter jurisdiction over a case that either raises a question under federal law or is between diverse parties and involves an amount in controversy of over $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The Court, on its own motion, REMANDS this suit to state court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
In her notice of removal, Ms. Saulnier argues that this case arises under federal law because Ingino's complaint "pleads and alleges claims 'arising under' [f]ederal
[l]aw." (Notice of Removal at 2.) This basis for removal is without merit because Ingino's complaint alleges only a state law unlawful detainer cause of action. Ms. Saulnier further alleges there is federal question jurisdiction based upon her "[d]iscovery
[r]equest and [d]emand for [an original promissory note] and as to identify the statutory basis for the discovery request/demand and other claims." (Notice of Removal at 2.) But Ms. Saulnier's reference to a discovery request similarly does not give rise to federal question jurisdiction.
Ms. Saulnier's notice of removal also attempts to invoke diversity jurisdiction. The notice of removal makes a conclusory statement that "[f]rom the allegation[s] set forth in the State [C]omplaint . . . [Ms. Saulnier] believe[s] that the amount of controversy exceeds . . . $95,000 (Ninety-Five Thousand Dollars)." (Notice of Removal at 2.) This claim is without basis. Plaintiff's suit alleges the state law claim of unlawful detainer and seeks less than $10,000 in damages. (Notice of Removal, Ex. 1.) Indeed, Ingino seeks damages of $50.00 per day beginning August 31, 2010 plus costs and other just relief. (Notice of Removal, Ex. 1.) Thus, Ms. Saulnier has not satisfied the amount in controversy requirement to invoke diversity jurisdiction.
Therefore, the Court, on its own motion, hereby REMANDS this suit to state court because the Court lacks ...