CitiMortgage Inc v. Rita Dinsmore et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Superior Court of California - County of Los Angeles, Case number 14F05452 Case Terminated. Defendant's removal of this case was improper, and it is hereby REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal Letter Re Remand) (pso)

JS-6

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

CV 15-01204-RGK (FFMx)

Title

CITIMORTGAGE, INC. v. DINSMORE, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

March 12, 2015

R. GARY KLAUSNER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Sharon L. Williams (Not Present)

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

(IN CHAMBERS) Order Remanding Action to State Court

On June 23, 2014, CitiMortgage, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint for unlawful detainer and
money damages in California Superior Court. The caption of the Complaint states that it is a limited
civil case, as the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. (See ECF No. 1 at 27.) On February 19,
2015, Zita Shing Chua (“Defendant”), in pro se, removed the action to federal court on the basis of
diversity and federal question jurisdiction.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441, et seq. The Ninth Circuit
has held unequivocally that the removal statute is construed strictly against removal. Ethridge v. Harbor
House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). “The ‘strong presumption’ against removal
jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.”
Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach &
Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank (S.D.), N.A.,
264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving
the case is properly in federal court.”).
For this Court to have diversity jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a). The Complaint states that this case was filed as a limited jurisdiction case, and that the
amount demanded is no greater than $10,000. The Complaint seeks damages of $47.37 per day. (ECF
No. 1 at 28.) This amounts to $17,290.05 per year, and this case has been pending for less than that time.
Since the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000, this Court does not have diversity
jurisdiction.
With regard to federal question jurisdiction, the Court’s review of the Complaint shows that
Plaintiff raised no federal question therein. Plaintiff’s Complaint is a discrete action for unlawful
detainer, an action which exclusively invokes authority pursuant to California statute. The Complaint
does not set forth any claims arising under the U.S. Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

for which the Court would have “original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendant cannot confer
jurisdiction upon the Court by attempting to attach a federal question to her Notice of Removal.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s removal of this case was improper, and it is hereby
REMANDED to state court for all further proceedings.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2