UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 13, 2012
TITLE THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON
JEROME OCTAVIANO, ET AL.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable Dolly M. Gee, United States District Judge
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
VALENCIA VALLERY NOT REPORTED
Deputy Clerk Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present None Present
Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS-ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On January 17, 2012, Plaintiff Bank of New York Mellon filed a complaint in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendant Jerome Octaviano and Does 1 through 10. Plaintiff seeks possession of real property and restitution for Defendant's use and occupancy of the property in the amount of $100 per day starting on January 10, 2012. (Compl. at 3-4.) Defendant removed the case to this Court on January 26, 2012, asserting subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
The complaint, however, raises no federal question. Federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009). Nor does the complaint reveal a basis for diversity jurisdiction. The amount in controversy is well below the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The caption of the underlying state court complaint clearly states that the amount of damages sought by Plaintiff does not exceed $10,000.
In light of the foregoing, Defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendant shall file his response by no later than March 27, 2012. All deadlines are stayed pending resolution of the jurisdictional issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.