United States District Court, C.D. California
ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING AS MOOT REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [3]
OTIS
D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On July
12, 2016, Defendant Marcos Rodriguez removed this unlawful
detainer action to federal court based on both diversity
jurisdiction and federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1.)
After reviewing Defendant’s Notice of Removal and the
underlying Complaint, it is clear that no federal subject
matter jurisdiction exists. Consequently, the Court sua
sponte REMANDS this action to state court.[1]
Federal
courts have subject matter jurisdiction only as authorized by
the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, §
2, cl. 1; see also 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 only if the federal
court would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. 28
U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal courts have original
jurisdiction where an action arises under federal law,
id. § 1331, or where each plaintiff’s
citizenship is diverse from each defendant’s
citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000,
id. § 1332(a).
The
removal statute is strictly construed against removal, and
“[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is
any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party seeking removal bears the
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v.
Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir.
2006). The court may remand the action sua sponte
“[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that
the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.”
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also United Inv’rs
Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960,
967 (9th Cir. 2004).
“[T]he
presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is
governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule, which provides
that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question
is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Provincial Gov’t of
Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1091
(9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Rivet v. Regions Bank of
Louisiana, 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998) (internal quotation
marks omitted). Plaintiff’s Complaint prays for relief
for unlawful detainer solely based on California’s Code
of Civil Procedure § 1661a. (ECF No. 1 Ex. C,
Complaint.) Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by
itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the
construction of federal law, no basis for federal question
jurisdiction appears on the face of the
Complaint.[2] At best, Defendants can only assert
federally-based defenses, which are not considered when
evaluating jurisdiction. Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp.,
410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law
defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on
a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal
preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiffs
complaint.”).
Nor is
there any basis for diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff
requests damages at the rate of $51.66 per day from May 24,
2016 (i.e., 54 days total). (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 17.)
This amounts to $2, 789.64, which is far less than the
required amount in controversy of $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a).
For the
reasons discussed above, the Court REMANDS the action to the
Superior Court, County of Los Angeles, Case No. 16U06415, for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendant’s
Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) The Clerk
of the Court shall close the case.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
---------
Notes:
[1] After carefully considering
Defendants’ Notice of Removal and the documents filed
in support thereof, the Court deems the matter appropriate
for sua sponte decision. United Inv’rs
Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960,
967 (9th Cir. 2004).
[2]
See, e.g., U.S. Bank
Nat’l Ass’n v. Tyler, No. C 10-4033 PJH,
2010 WL 4918790, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2010) (holding
that a single claim for unlawful detainer under state law did
not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction);
IndyMac Fed. Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. EDCV
09-2337 ...