Aurora Loan Services LLC et al v. Rafael Ruiz et al

Filing 5

MINUTES: (In Chambers) Remand Order; The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, and therefore REMANDS the case IT IS SO ORDERED by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez (cc Copy of Minute Order, Letter of Remand, and Docket sheet to Superior Court of California, Pomona Courthouse, Case number 09U00882) (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (ir)

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-6480 PSG (FMOx) Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Rafael Ruiz, et al. Date September 24, 2009

Present:

The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge Not Present Court Reporter n/a Tape No.

Wendy K. Hernandez Deputy Clerk Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s): Not Present Proceedings:

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s): Not Present

(In Chambers) Remand Order

On September 23, 2009, Defendants Rafael Ruiz and Diego Ruiz ("Defendants") filed a notice of removal of an unlawful detainer action brought by Plaintiff Aurora Loan Services LLC ("Plaintiff"). After reviewing Defendants' notice of removal and the underlying complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (observing that a court is required to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction). The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to be evident from the face of the plaintiff's complaint for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to exist. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists. Furthermore, the Court notes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be "complete" diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267, 2 L. Ed. 435 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, Defendants' notice of removal fails to establish complete diversity of citizenship. Also, from the face of Plaintiff's complaint, it is apparent that Defendants will be unable to prove that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of attorney's fees and costs. Thus, diversity jurisdiction is lacking. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
CV-90 (06/04) CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Page 1 of 2

O
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6 CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. Title CV 09-6480 PSG (FMOx) Aurora Loan Services LLC v. Rafael Ruiz, et al. Date September 24, 2009

matter and, therefore, REMANDS the case. IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2