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)

Download PDF
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?