Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hector D Perdomo et al

Filing 6

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: As Defendant has not established a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, this action is hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 11C02266. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

Date

CV 11-09330 DMG (VBKx)

November 14, 2011

Title Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hector D. Perdomo, et al.
Present: The Honorable

Page

1 of 2

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VALENCIA VALLERY
Deputy Clerk

NOT REPORTED
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
None Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
None Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS—ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
On June 10, 2011, Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Trust Company filed a complaint in
Los Angeles County Superior Court for unlawful detainer against Defendant Hector D. Perdomo
and Does “I” through “X.” Plaintiff seeks possession of real property and restitution for
Defendant’s use and occupancy of the property in the amount of $156.68 per day starting on
May 24, 2011. (Compl. at 3-4.) Defendant removed the case to this Court on November 9,
2011, asserting subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of a federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331,
and diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
“The burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking
removal.” Marin Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir.
2009) (citing Toumajian v. Frailey, 135 F.3d 648, 652 (9th Cir. 1998)). There is a “strong
presumption against removal jurisdiction,” and courts must reject it “if there is any doubt as to
the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex
rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566
(9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam)) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The complaint raises no federal question. Federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual
or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, __ U.S. __, 129 S.Ct. 1262,
1272, 173 L.Ed.2d 206 (2009). Nor does the complaint reveal any possibility of diversity
jurisdiction. The amount in controversy is well below the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for
diversity jurisdiction. The caption of the underlying state court complaint clearly states that the
amount of damages sought by Plaintiff does not exceed $10,000.
Defendant contends that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 because the amount
of the unpaid debt on the subject property at the time of foreclosure was $508,000 and the
current market value of the property is at least $300,000. (Notice of Removal ¶ 9.) The
complaint, however, does not place Plaintiff’s title in controversy. “Unlawful detainer actions
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

CV 11-09330 DMG (VBKx)

Date

November 14, 2011

Title Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Hector D. Perdomo, et al.

Page

2 of 2

are . . . of limited scope, generally dealing only with the issue of right to possession and not other
claims between the parties, even if related to the property.” Larson v. City and County of San
Francisco, 192 Cal. App. 4th 1263, 1297, 123 Cal. Rptr. 3d 40 (2011) (citing Birkenfeld v. City
of Berkeley, 17 Cal. 3d 129, 151, 130 Cal. Rptr. 465 (1976)). As Plaintiff’s complaint challenges
Defendant’s possession rather than his ownership of the property, the appropriate amount in
controversy is the property’s rental value.
Unlawful detainer actions proceed on an expedited basis. See Larson, 192 Cal. App. 4th
at 1297. A defendant has five days to answer the complaint, Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1167.3, and
trials are generally held no more than 20 days after the request to set the time of trial is made, id.
§ 1170.5(a). In all likelihood, the Superior Court will require less than three months to resolve
this case. At a daily rental rate of $156.68, the restitution allegedly owed by Defendant for his
continued occupancy of the property will not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum until
September 14, 2012. Defendant thus fails to show by a preponderance of the evidence that this
case meets the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction.
As Defendant has not established a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, this action is
hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk vv