NBG Properties LLC v. Alfred Distefano et al

Filing 9

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before July 10, 2013, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. SEE ORDER. (im)

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

CV 13-03863-CAS (JCx)

Title

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

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 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 TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

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. Defendants contend that this court has diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §
1332. Also, defendants argue there is federal question jurisdiction since this case
implicates federal bankruptcy laws under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2) as well as due process
concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.
II.

ANALYSIS

After reviewing defendants’ notice of removal, the Court finds that it appears to
lack jurisdiction over the instant case. First, the Court appears to lack 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. § 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.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 13-03863-CAS (JCx)

Date

June 25, 2013

Title

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

Here, plaintiff expressly disclaims any entitlement to relief in excess of $10,000. See
Dkt. No. 1, Ex. B. Accordingly, the Court appears to lack subject matter 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
attempting to raise 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 appears to
lack subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 82300 at *6.
III.

CONCLUSION

Defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before July 10, 2013,
why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2