Shahin Aminilari v. Elisa Gomez et al
Filing
5
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE COURT by Judge Audrey B. Collins, Accordingly, the Court (1) REMANDS this case to the Superior Court ofCalifornia, County of San Luis Obispo, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) ORDERS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) ORDERS the Clerk to serve copies of this Order on the parties. RE: remanding case to Superior Court of the State of California for San Luis Obispo, Case number LC130416. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL - REMAND TO SUPERIOR COURT) (lw)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
) CASE NO. CV 14-3093 ABC (PJWx)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
) ORDER REMANDING CASE TO STATE
ELISA GOMEZ and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) COURT
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
SHAHIN AMINILARI,
18
On April 23, 2014, pro se Defendant Elisa Gomez, having been sued in what
19
appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court, filed a Notice
20
of Removal of that action to this Court. (Docket No. 1.) For the reasons set forth
21
below, the Court REMANDS this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
22
As a routine unlawful detainer action, Plaintiff could not have brought this action
23
in federal court initially because the complaint does not competently allege facts
24
creating subject matter jurisdiction, rendering removal improper. 28 U.S.C. §1441(a);
25
see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162
26
L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). First, the Complaint for unlawful detainer does not give rise to a
27
federal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b). Defendant’s Notice of Removal
28
asserts that “Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice which expressly references and
1
incorporates the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,” 12 U.S.C. § 5201.
2
(Docket No. 1 at 2.) That statute, however, is not implicated by Plaintiff’s Complaint,
3
which is limited to a claim for unlawful detainer. To the extent Defendant seeks to
4
assert the “Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act” as a potential defense or
5
counterclaim, neither are considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on
6
the face of a complaint. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal
7
jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill
8
Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim
9
does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal
10
preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”).
11
Second, the amount in controversy is under $10,000 in this limited civil case, and
12
therefore does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C.
13
§§ 1332, 1441(b).
14
Accordingly, the Court (1) REMANDS this case to the Superior Court of
15
California, County of San Luis Obispo, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant
16
to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) ORDERS the Clerk to send a certified copy of this Order to
17
the state court; and (3) ORDERS the Clerk to serve copies of this Order on the parties.
18
19
IT IS SO ORDERED.
20
21
22
DATED: April 28, 2014
AUDREY B. COLLINS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?