Roland Lidner et al v. Tania Franklin et al

Filing 8

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The Court does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The Court therefore REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case Number 14F10555. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Present. (gk)

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

2:14-cv-09871-CAS-PJW

Title

LIDNER V. FRANKLIN ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

March 12, 2015

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

CATHERINE JEANG
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A

N/A

Proceedings:

I.

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

INTRODUCTION

On November 7, 2014, plaintiffs Roland and Marina Lidner filed a form complaint
for unlawful detainer in the Los Angeles Superior Court seeking monetary relief against
Angela Wallace, Tai Phillips and Does 1-10. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint alleges damages
of less than $5,000. Id. On December 29, 2014, Tania Franklin appeared as Doe 1, and
removed the action to this Court on the basis of purported diversity and/or federal
question jurisdiction. Id. Franklin alleges in her declaration in support of removal that
she is preparing to file a civil action against plaintiffs for damages of $500,000 arising
from the same events underlying the unlawful detainer claim. Dkt. No. 3. Defendant
also appears to allege a constitutional defense of some kind. Id. On January 29, 2015,
the Court, noting the probable lack of federal jurisdiction, issued an order to show cause
why this case should not be remanded by February 12, 2015. Dkt. No. 7. To date,
defendants have not responded to that order. For the reasons below, the Court hereby
REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles Superior Court.
II.

DISCUSSION

Removal is proper where the federal courts would have had original jurisdiction
over an action filed in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Courts recognize a “strong
presumption” against removal jurisdiction and place the burden on the removing party to
demonstrate that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See, e.g., Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980
F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the
district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. §
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 4

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

2:14-cv-09871-CAS-PJW

Title

Date

March 12, 2015

LIDNER V. FRANKLIN ET AL.

1447(c). In general, a federal district court has subject matter jurisdiction where a case
presents a claim arising under federal law (“federal question jurisdiction”), or where the
plaintiffs and defendants are residents of different states and the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000 (“diversity jurisdiction”). See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. v.
Galindo, 2011 WL 662324, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2011) (explaining the two types of
jurisdiction).
A.

Federal Question Jurisdiction

The Court concludes that federal question jurisdiction does not exist in this case.
Whether federal question jurisdiction exists is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint
rule.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Under this rule, the federal
question “must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer.”
Gully v. First Nat’l Bank in Meridian, 299 U.S. 109, 113 (1936); see also Phillips Petrol.
Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127–28 (1974). A federal defense, even a
constitutional one, is not part of a plaintiff’s claim. See Metro Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor,
481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (explaining that a defense “does not appear on the face of a wellpleaded complaint and, therefore, does not authorize removal to federal court”).
Therefore, federal question jurisdiction may not be based on an anticipated defense
created by federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers Vacation Trust for S. Cal.,
463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983); see California Equity Mgmt. Grp., Inc. V. Jiminez, 2013 WL
1748051, at *1 (N.D. Cal. April 23, 2013) (“[A] defendant cannot create federal subject
matter jurisdiction by adding claims or raising defenses.”) (remanding an unlawful
detainer action); OP Dev., Inc. v. Pascal , 2011 WL 3687636, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23,
2011) (“Defendant's attempt at creating federal subject matter jurisdiction by adding
claims or defenses to a notice of removal will not succeed.”).
Here, the complaint alleges only a single state law claim for unlawful detainer and
does not cite federal law. It is settled that “[u]nlawful detainer actions are strictly within
the province of state court.” Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Assoc. v. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
82300, at *6 (E.D. Cal. July 27, 2011); see also Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust, 2011 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 83854, at *2 (“[T]he complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a
cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”). Further, although defendants assert
that a “property interest violation under the United States Constitution” and a “federal
question of rights secured by the United States Constitution” are at stake in this action,
dkt. No. 3 at 1-2—which the Court construes as a constitutional defense—it is equally
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 4

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

2:14-cv-09871-CAS-PJW

Title

Date

March 12, 2015

LIDNER V. FRANKLIN ET AL.

well-settled that a federal defense and/or counter-claim does not suffice to create federal
question jurisdiction. Metro Life Ins. Co., 481 U.S. at 63 (explaining that a defense
“does not appear on the face of a well-pleaded complaint and, therefore, does not
authorize removal to federal court”). Thus, the Court lacks federal question jurisdiction
over this claim.
B.

Diversity Jurisdiction

Second, the Court concludes that diversity jurisdiction does not exist in this case.
For diversity jurisdiction to lie, all plaintiffs must be diverse from all defendants, and the
amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. See, e.g., Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust, 2011
WL 662324, at *1 (explaining the requirements for diversity jurisdiction). “In unlawful
detainer actions, ‘the right to possession alone [is] involved—not title to the property.’ ”
Fed. Nat. Mortgage Ass'n v. Sue Lin Poh, 2012 WL 3727266, at *2 (citing Litton Loan
Servicing, L.P. v.Villegas, 2011 WL 204322, at *2); see Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal.
App. 3d 162, 168 (1977). Therefore, “the amount of damages sought in the complaint,
not the value of the subject real property, determines the amount in controversy.”
Villegas, 2011 WL 204322, at *2.
Here, the complaint pleads damages of $52.60 per day, beginning on October 15,
2014. Even if complete diversity of citizenship exists—and it is not clear that it
does—the complaint pleads damages of less than $8,000. Moreover, although defendants
assert that they intend to file a suit against plaintiffs seeking damages in the amount of
$500,000, dkt. No. 3 at 1-2, it does not appear that they have done so. See Pozez v. Clean
Energy Capital, LLC, 2015 WL 525499, at *1 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2015) (explaining that
courts consider the amount sought by a defendant in a counterclaim in determining
whether amount in controversy requirement is satisfied). Thus, the Court also lacks
diversity jurisdiction over this claim.
III

CONCLUSION

As discussed above, the Court does not have federal subject matter jurisdiction
over this action. “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court
lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The
Court therefore REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 3 of 4

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

2:14-cv-09871-CAS-PJW

Title

Date

March 12, 2015

LIDNER V. FRANKLIN ET AL.

IT IS SO ORDERED
:
Initials of
Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 4 of 4