NBG Properties LLC v. Alfred Distefano et al

Filing 11

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: On 6/25/2013, the Court issued an order to show cause why this case should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 9 . To date, no response has been received. The complaint asserts only a single state law claim for unlawful detainer, which does not give rise to a federal question. Defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by raising a defense under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or other federal law. Accordingly, the Court also lacks subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question. this case is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 13F02199. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

JS-6

Case No.

CV 13-03863-CAS (JCx)

Title

NBG PROPERTIES, LLC V. ALFRED DISTEFANO, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

July 25, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not present

Not present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO THE LOS
ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

INTRODUCTION

On April 25, 2013, plaintiff NGB Properties, LLC, filed an unlawful detainer
action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Alfred and Daryl
Distefano.
On May 30, 2013, defendants filed a notice of removal to this court pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1446. In their notice of removal, defendants contend that this Court has
diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. They further maintain that federal question
jurisdiction exists, as this case implicates federal bankruptcy laws and due process
concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.
On June 25, 2013, the Court issued an order to show cause why this case should
not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To date, no response has been
received.
II.

ANALYSIS

After reviewing defendants’ notice of removal, the Court finds that it lacks
jurisdiction over the instant case. First, the Court lacks jurisdiction based on diversity of
citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Plaintiff alleges in its complaint that it is a limited
liability company organized pursuant to California law. Defendants offer no evidence to
the contrary, and maintain that they too are California residents. Moreover, the amount in
controversy does not appear to exceed the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

JS-6

Case No.

CV 13-03863-CAS (JCx)

July 25, 2013

Title

NBG PROPERTIES, LLC V. ALFRED DISTEFANO, ET AL.

§ 1332(a). In unlawful detainer actions, the title to the property is not at issue—only the
right to possession. See Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977). As
such, the amount in controversy is determined by the amount of damages sought in the
complaint, rather than the value of the subject real property. Id. Here, plaintiff expressly
disclaims any entitlement to relief in excess of $10,000. See Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B.
Accordingly, the Court lacks jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship.
Second, cases raising a question “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States” may be removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a case
arises under federal law is generally determined by the well-pleaded complaint rule: “a
right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an
element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” California Shock
Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 636 F.3d 538, 541 (9th Cir. 2011)
(citations omitted). A defendant’s attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction
by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal must fail. McAtee v. Capital One,
F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007).
Here, the complaint asserts only a single state law claim for unlawful detainer,
which does not give rise to a federal question. See Dkt. No. 1. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust
Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he
complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a
matter of state law.”). Defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by
raising a defense under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution or other
federal law. See McAtee, 479 F.3d at 1145. Accordingly, the Court also lacks subject
matter jurisdiction based on a federal question.
III.

CONCLUSION

In accordance with the foregoing, this case is hereby REMANDED to the Los
Angeles County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2