United States District Court, E.D. California
SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE
LAWRENCE J. O’NEILL UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE.
undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to a
Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and
Recommendations in this case.
August 2, 2016, Defendant Tammy Hazel filed a pro se Notice
of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from
the Superior Court for the County of Stanislaus. Doc. 1. For
the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS
this case to the Superior Court of California for the County
28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), a defendant may remove an action to
federal court if the district court has original
jurisdiction. Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d
1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). 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). Federal courts are courts of limited
jurisdiction and can adjudicate only those cases authorized
by the United States Constitution and Congress. Generally,
those cases involve diversity of citizenship, a federal
question, or where the United States is a party. See
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994);
Franchise Tax Bd. of State of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Trust for S. California, 463 U.S. 1, 8 (1983);
28 U.S.C. § 1442. Lack of subject matter jurisdiction is
never waived and may be raised by the Court sua
sponte. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3); Snell v. Cleveland,
Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). Furthermore,
the law is clear in the Ninth Circuit that the removal
statute should be strictly construed in favor of remand and
against removal. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas.
Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). Among other
things, this means that the defendant always has the burden
of establishing that removal is proper. California ex
rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th
Cir. 2004). Federal 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.
determining the presence or absence of federal question
jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded
complaint rule” applies, “which provides that
federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is
presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v.
Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). In the instant case,
Defendant is unable to establish federal question
jurisdiction because the complaint filed in the state court
contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer based
on California Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a. Unlawful
detainer actions are strictly within the province of the
state courts. See PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n v.
Ahluwalia, No. C 15-01264 WHA, 2015 WL 3866892, at *4
(N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) (collecting cases). Therefore,
Plaintiff’s complaint avoids federal question
jurisdiction. A defendant cannot create federal subject
matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice
of removal. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50
(2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon
an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); 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
next possible basis for this Court’s jurisdiction is
diversity. District courts have diversity jurisdiction over
“all civil actions where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interests
and costs, ” and the action is between “(1)
citizens of different States; (2) citizens of a State and
citizens or subjects of a foreign state; (3) citizens of
different States and in which citizens or subjects of a
foreign state are additional parties; and (4) a foreign state
. . . as plaintiff and citizens of a State or of different
States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see also Geographic
Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102,
1106 (9th Cir. 2010). Defendant cannot establish diversity of
citizenship jurisdiction in this case. The complaint filed in
the underlying unlawful detainer action unequivocally states
that the amount in controversy is less than $10, 000. When a
state court complaint affirmatively alleges that the amount
in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the
party seeking removal must prove with “legal
certainty” that the jurisdictional amount is met.
Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699
(9th Cir. 2007); see also Glassical Creations, Inc. v.
Canter, No. CV 15-04358 MMM PJWX, 2015 WL 4127912, at *4
& n. 10 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015). Defendant’s
notice of removal does not provide any basis for a finding
that the amount in controversy exceeds the $75, 000
threshold. The amount in controversy is determined without
regard to any setoff or counterclaim to which defendant may
be entitled. Mesa Indus., Inc. v. Eaglebrook Products,
Inc., 980 F.Supp. 323, 326 (D. Ariz. 1997). Thus, the
amount in controversy is insufficient to provide this Court
with diversity jurisdiction.
in removal cases where the purported basis of jurisdiction is
diversity jurisdiction, removal is not permitted where a
defendant is a citizen of the state in which the plaintiff
originally brought the action (even if the opposing parties
are citizens of different states). See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b). Here, Defendant lists her address as 2621
Santa Fe Street Lot #25, Riverbank, California, and does not
provide any alternative basis for a finding of diverse
the Court REMANDS this case to the Superior Court for the
County of Stanislaus for all future proceedings.
Plaintiff’s motion to ...