UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 5, 2013
HBSC BANK, USA, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable James V. Selna
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Present: The Honorable James V. Selna
Karla J. Tunis Not Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys
Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present
Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange
On April 2, 2013, defendants Peter Truong et al. (collectively "Truong") removed this case from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. (Notice of Removal, Docket No. 1.) Truong removes this case pursuant to the diversity statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Notice of Removal, ¶ 3.)
Assuming complete diversity of citizenship exists among the parties, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because it is apparent that the amount of relief sought is less than the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. The face of the underlying unlawful detainer complaint states that the amount of claimed damages is less than $10,000. Indeed, all that is sought is rent.
The other jurisdictional statutes cited by Truong relate to the counterclaims which he asserts. (Notice of Removal, ¶¶ 8-9.) However, the Court must determine jurisdiction on the basis of the case removed. The underlying action is an unlawful detainer action. No federal claims are asserted (28 U.S.C. § 1331). Federal defenses or federal counterclaims provide no basis to remove an action which does not otherwise establish federal jurisdiction. See Franchise Board of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 643 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1998). There is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.
The case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange for lack of jurisdiction.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.