Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Palmdale Medical Center, LLC v. Dr. Kinan Hadaya; and Does 1 Through 10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


August 21, 2012

PALMDALE MEDICAL CENTER, LLC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
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

JS-6

REMAND ORDER

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.

20120821

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.