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 REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
On February 21, 2012, defendant Gregory Arbib removed this case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, 1332 and 1343, asserting jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship and civil rights. On February 27, 2012, this Court ordered defendant to show cause in writing by March 8, 2012 why this action should not be remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction ("OSC"). [Doc. # 6.] Defendant was advised that failure to file a timely and satisfactory response would result in the remand of this action to state court. To date, defendant has failed to file any response to the OSC.
"The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal." Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)). There is a "strong presumption against removal jurisdiction," and courts must reject it "if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance." Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The complaint does not reveal a basis for diversity jurisdiction as the amount in controversy is well below the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. Plaintiff ING Bank sues for unlawful detainer seeking possession of real property and restitution for defendants' use and occupancy of the property in the amount of $45.37 per day starting on May 3, 2011. (compl. at 2.) The caption of the complaint clearly states that the amount of damages sought by plaintiff does not exceed $10,000.
Because the sole cause of action for unlawful detainer arises from state law, there also is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60-61 (2009). Similarly, 28 U.S.C. § 1343 does not apply because plaintiff does not allege that defendants deprived it of a federal civil right.
As such, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action.*fn1 Accordingly, this action is hereby REMANDED to ...