UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
October 25, 2012
WEDGEWOOD COMMUNITY FUND II, LLC
ADALBERT M. ZAMORA; PAMELA E. ZAMORA AND DOES 1 TO 10
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Present: Honorable VIRGINIA A. Phillips, U.S. District Judge
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Marva Dillard None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)
This matter is appropriate for resolution without hearing pursuant to Local Rule 7-15 and stands submitted on the moving papers.
On October 5, 2012, alleging that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over the instant case, pro se Defendans Adalbert Zamora and Pamela Zamora removed the above-captioned unlawful detainer action to this Court from the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino. For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v.
, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman--Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court."). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.")
Defendants allege the bases for removal are federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. 1332. From the face of the Complaint, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action.
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (holding that a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless the basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint). Without a federal question pled in a complaint, there is no federal question jurisdiction. Also from the face of the Complaint, the "demand does not exceed $10,000.00," well below the $75,000.00 in damages necessary to invoke diversity jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the California Superior Court for the County of San Bernardino and VACATES the hearing set for November 19, 2012.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.