UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 21, 2012
PALMDALE MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
DR. KINAN HADAYA; AND DOES 1 THROUGH 10, INCLUSIVE, DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Otis D. Wright, II United States District Judge
Having carefully considered Defendant's notice of removal, the Court determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the case is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Defendant claims that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this state-law unlawful-detainer action because there is diversity jurisdiction. Unfortunately, Defendant is wrong.
Diversity jurisdiction exists "where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs," and is between parties with diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In this case, Defendant is a citizen of California, having an address of 833 Auto Center Drive, Suite C, Palmdale, California, 93551. Defendant admits that Plaintiff is incorporated in California. (Notice of Removal ¶ 5.) Thus, the parties are lack complete diversity of citizenship.
Even if there exists diversity of citizenship, the Complaint states that it is a limited-jurisdiction case. (Compl. 1.) Under California law, this means the amount in controversy does not exceed $25,000. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 85(a). Thus, Defendant has not shown to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Nat'l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 999-1000 (9th Cir. 2007).
Further, there is no basis for federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 for a claim of unlawful detainer. Aurora Loan Servs. v. De La Rosa, No. 11-912, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69217, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011).
For the above reasons, the Court REMANDS the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.