The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Andrew J. Guilford
Present: The Honorable ANDREW J. GUILFORD
Lisa Bredahl Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE
Plaintiff U.S. Bank, National Association ("Plaintiff") filed a Complaint ("Complaint") for unlawful detainer in state court against Defendant Cloer ("Defendant"). Defendant now files a Notice of Removal to Federal Court ("Notice of Removal"). For the reasons that follow, this Court REMANDS this case back to State Court.
Whether an action is properly in federal court on the basis of removal jurisdiction "depends on whether the case originally could have been filed in federal court." City of Chicago v. Int'l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997); 28 U.S.C. 1441(a). Defendant argues that the case could have originally been filed in federal court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. The Court finds that neither basis is proper.
1. Diversity Jurisdiction
Defendant fails to establish diversity jurisdiction. To establish diversity jurisdiction, the Defendant must allege both that complete diversity exists between the parties, and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
First, Defendant failed entirely to allege the citizenship of Plaintiff. "Failure to specify [a party's] state citizenship [is] fatal to [an] assertion of diversity jurisdiction." Kanter v. Warner-Lamert Co. , 265 F.3d 853, 857-858 (9th Cir. 2001). Thus, Defendant fails to meet the citizenship requirement for invoking diversity jurisdiction.
Second, Defendant failed to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Plaintiff's Complaint seeks damages of $30.00 per day from July 30, 2011 to present for the illegal possession of Plaintiff's property. The total damages thus falls far short of $75,000. Contrary to Defendant's Notice of Removal, Defendant's former house is not at issue in this action and therefore its value cannot serve as a basis for diversity jurisdiction. Defendant therefore fails to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the requirements for federal diversity jurisdiction. See Lowdermilk v.
U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n., 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007) ("A party who removes a case on grounds of diversity jurisdiction has the burden of establishing that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.")
Because Defendant fails to establish either of the requirements, the Court DENIES Defendant's attempt to remove this case to federal court on ...