UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 11, 2012
THR CALIFORNIA, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
GLYNIS BRYANT BOGLIN, DOES 1 TO 10, INCLUSIVE
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable VIRGINIA A. Phillips, U.S. District Judge
PRIORITY SEND JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard None Present Courtroom Deputy Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFFS: ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANTS: None None
PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE(IN CHAMBERS)
On December 4, 2012, Pro Se Defendant Glynis Bryant Boglin removed this action from the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside. (See Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1).) Defendant has not identified the purported basis for subject-matter jurisdiction, but mentions violations of her Fourteenth Amendment rights and alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Accordingly, the Court construes Defendant's Notice of Removal to assert both federal question and diversity jurisdiction. For the following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside.
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. FedermanBachrach & 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. , 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).
The first basis for removal is federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. From the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action. See 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, there is no federal question jurisdiction.
The second basis for removal is diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. "A civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of [diversity jurisdiction] may not be removed if any of the . . . defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Defendant resides in California (See Not. of Removal at 3), and the Complaint was filed in the California Superior Court for the County of Riverside, which is located in California. Accordingly, Defendant may not remove the action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.
As no proper basis for removal exists, the Court lacks
jurisdiction and REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court
for the County of Riverside.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.