United States District Court, E.D. California
SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER
TROY
L. NUNLEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This
matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Sarde M.
Essilfie's (“Defendant”) Notice of Removal
and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1-2.) For
the reasons set forth below, Defendant's Motion to
Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED as moot, and
the Court hereby REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of
California, County of Sacramento, due to lack of diversity
and subject matter jurisdiction.
I.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or
about October 24, 2019, Plaintiff OREP 2927 Marconi, LLC
(“Plaintiff”) brought an action for unlawful
detainer against Defendant for possession of certain real
property located in Sacramento, California. (Notice of
Removal, ECF No. 1 at 6.) On December 9, 2019, Defendant
filed a Notice of Removal, removing the unlawful detainer
action from the Sacramento Superior Court. (ECF No. 1.)
II.
STANDARD OF LAW
28
U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of
any civil action over which “the district courts of the
United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(a). “Removal is proper only if the court
could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it
originally been filed in federal court.”
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392
(1987). There are two bases for federal subject matter
jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332. A district court has federal question
jurisdiction in “all civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”
28 U.S.C. § 1331. A district court has diversity
jurisdiction “where the matter in controversy exceeds
the sum or value of $75, 000, . . . and is between citizens
of different states, or citizens of a State and citizens or
subjects of a foreign state . . . .” Id.
§ 1332(a)(1)-(2).
Courts
“strictly construe the removal statute against removal
jurisdiction, ” and “the defendant always has the
burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir.
1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district
court at any time determines that it lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the
improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state
court.” California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy,
Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th
Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 U.S. 974 (2005).
The
“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.”
Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386. Federal court
jurisdiction therefore cannot be based on a defense,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a
federal question. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556
U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582
F.3d 1039, 1042-43 (9th Cir. 2009).
III.
ANALYSIS
It
appears Defendant attempts to remove the above-entitled
action to this Court based on both diversity jurisdiction and
federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 1 (citing to 28
U.S.C. § 1332 and 28 U.S.C. § 1441), 1-1 at 1
(alleging complete diversity and amount in controversy).) The
Court discusses each below.
To the
extent Defendant seeks to establish federal question
jurisdiction, she has failed to do so. Even assuming
Defendant intends to raise a federal defense or assert a
counterclaim against Plaintiff's unlawful detainer
action, it is clear that the Complaint itself contains only a
single claim for unlawful detainer. (ECF No. 1 at 6-10.) The
instant Complaint therefore relies solely on California state
law and does not state any claims under federal law. As
articulated above, removal cannot be based on a defense,
counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim raising a
federal question. Caterpillar Inc., 482 U.S. at 392;
see also Vaden, 556 U.S. at 49, 60- 62; Hunter
v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d at 1042-43. Thus,
Defendant cannot establish federal question jurisdiction.
Further,
to the extent Defendant seeks to establish diversity
jurisdiction, she has also failed to do so. Defendant does
not make any assertions in her Notice of Removal as to either
the complete diversity or the amount in controversy
requirement. (See ECF No. 1 at 1-2.) At most,
Defendant suggests these requirements are met by way of the
fill-in answers she has provided on the civil cover sheet
attached to the Notice of Removal (see ECF No. 1-1),
in which Defendant indicates she (incorrectly identified as
the plaintiff) resides in Sacramento, California, and
Plaintiff (identified as the defendant) resides in Las Vegas,
Nevada. (Id.) Defendant also indicates on the civil
cover sheet that the amount demanded in the Complaint is $75,
000 and identifies the cause of action to be “USCS
28-1332 and USCS 1441(a) Federal Constitutional question
diversity [sic].” (Id.)
Defendant
does not, however, provide any support for her assertion that
Plaintiff resides in Nevada, a burden which is hers.
Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also Matheson v.
Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090-91
(9th Cir. 2003) (the removing party must supply
“summary-judgment-type evidence. … Conclusory
allegations … are insufficient” to establish the
elements of removal jurisdiction.”). Consequently, the
Court cannot conclude that complete diversity exists between
the parties.
Nor
does Defendant establish that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000. Simply put, Defendant indicates on the
civil cover sheet that the amount requested in the Complaint
is $75, 000 (ECF No. 1-1), which does not exceed the
threshold amount in controversy. See Singer v. State Farm
Mut. Auto. Ins. Co.,116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997)
(where the complaint does not pray for damages in a specific
amount, the defendant must prove by a preponderance of the
evidence that the amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000).
Moreover, the Court does not agree that Plaintiffs Complaint
seeks damages in excess of $75, 000 where the cover page of
the Complaint is clearly marked to be a “LIMITED CIVIL
CASE” in which the amount demanded “does not
exceed $10, ...