RJ Moon Inc et al v. Iqbal Ashraf et al

Filing 5

ORDER REMANDING CASE by Judge Gary A. Feess. The Court REMANDS the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court. remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica, Case number 13R05804 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)

LINK: 4

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

CV 13-05721 GAF (MRWx)

Title

RJ Moon Inc et al v. Iqbal Ashraf et al

Present: The Honorable

Date

August 16, 2013

GARY ALLEN FEESS

Stephen Montes
Deputy Clerk

None
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

(In Chambers)
ORDER REMANDING CASE
I.
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

On July 22, 2013, Plaintiff R.J. Moon, Inc., Trust A of the RJ & EB Moon Trust Dated
05/30/1991 filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against
Defendant Iqbal Ashraf. (Docket No. 1, [Notice of Removal (“Not.”)], Ex. A [Compl.].) The
action was filed as a limited jurisdiction action, seeking no more than $10,000. (Id.) Plaintiff
alleges that on or about July 8, 2013, Plaintiff purchased the Property at issue, located in Los
Angeles, California, at a trustee’s sale. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4; id., Ex. 1 [Trustee’s Deed].) On July 18,
2013, Plaintiff served a written notice to quit and deliver possession of the Property within three
days after service of the notice. (Id. ¶¶ 6-7.) Defendant refused to deliver possession and
remains in possession of the property without Plaintiff’s permission or consent. (Id. ¶¶ 8-10.)
Plaintiff seeks holdover damages in addition to possession. (Id. ¶¶ 11-12; id. at 3.)
On August 7, 2013, an individual by the name of Muhammad Latif, who is not named as
a defendant in the underlying Complaint, removed this action to this Court, in pro per, invoking
the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. (Not. at 1, ¶ 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court
concludes, sua sponte, that Mr. Latif failed to establish this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the case to Los Angeles County Superior Court. Given this
Order, Plaintiff’s pending ex parte application to remand, (Docket No. 4), is DENIED as moot.
///

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

LINK: 4

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

CV 13-05721 GAF (MRWx)

Title

Date

August 16, 2013

RJ Moon Inc et al v. Iqbal Ashraf et al
II.
DISCUSSION

A. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), “[i]f the court determines at any time
that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(h)(3). “[A] court may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction, sua sponte, at any time
during the pendency of the action . . . .” Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.
2002); see also United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th
Cir. 2004) (“Here the district court had a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the
removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”). The Ninth Circuit has
held that courts must “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction” and
reject federal jurisdiction “if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citation omitted). “The strong
presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of
establishing that removal is proper.” Id. (quotations and citations omitted).
Section 1332 confers federal courts with original jurisdiction over “all civil actions where
the matter in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 . . . and is between . . . citizens of a State and
citizens or subjects of a foreign state.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). “Diversity jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1332 requires complete diversity, i.e. every plaintiff must be diverse from every
defendant.” Osborn v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 341 F. Supp. 2d 1123, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2004).
A “natural person’s state citizenship is [] determined by her state of domicile, not her state of
residence.” Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). A corporation is
a “citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its
principal place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c)(1) (emphasis added).
B. APPLICATION
Regarding citizenship, Mr. Latif asserts that Plaintiff is a California corporation and
therefore a citizen of California and he “is a resident of UAE (Saudi Arabia).” (Not. ¶¶ 4, 5.)
Regarding the amount in controversy, Mr. Latif asserts that Plaintiffs are seeking $2.4 million
dollars, ostensibly the value of the loan Mr. Latif and/or Defendant took out on the Property and
subsequently defaulted on. (Id. ¶ 7.)
The Court finds that on the basis of Mr. Latif’s allegations and the Complaint, subject
matter jurisdiction is lacking. Mr. Latif’s allegations are plainly inadequate. Regarding
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

LINK: 4

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

CV 13-05721 GAF (MRWx)

Title

Date

August 16, 2013

RJ Moon Inc et al v. Iqbal Ashraf et al

citizenship, Plaintiff is a corporation. (Compl. ¶ 1.) Mr. Latif alleges only Plaintiff’s place of
incorporation, leaving out entirely Plaintiff’s principal place of business. Further, Mr. Latif only
alleges his place of residence, not his place of citizenship. More importantly, Mr. Latif fails to
allege the citizenship of the only Defendant actually named in the Complaint. And finally, Mr.
Latif wholly fails to substantiate his allegation regarding the amount in controversy. This is an
unlawful detainer action, and “[t]he amount in controversy in an unlawful-detainer action is . . .
determined by the amount of damages sought in the Complaint, not by the value of the subject
property.” Fannie Mae v. Herrera, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51924, at *5 (C.D. Cal. April 10,
2013). Accordingly, the Complaint - which seeks no more than $10,000 in damages - precludes
finding diversity jurisdiction applicable.
It is evident that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and therefore
the Court must remand this case.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, subject matter jurisdiction has not been established in this case.
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court.
Plaintiff’s pending ex parte application to remand is therefore DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 3