Roland Lidner et al v. Angela Wallace et al

Filing 7

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Christina A. Snyder: The 6/10/2015 order to show cause directed defendant to demonstrate why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action no later than 6/25/2015 6 . As of this date, defendant has not filed a response. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the Court's 6/10/2015 order, this action is hereby REMANDED 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

JS-6

Case No.

2:15-cv-03122-CAS(SSx)

Title

ROLAND LIDNER, ET AL. V. ANGELA WALLACE, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

‘O’

June 29, 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:

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings:

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

On November 7, 2014, plaintiffs Ronald Lidner and Marina Lidner filed an
unlawful detainer action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants
Angela Wallace, Tai Phillips, and Does 1 through 10. Dkt. 1. On April 27, 2015,
defendant Phillips removed the action to this Court on the basis of purported federal
question and diversity jurisdiction. Id.
In the removal notice, defendant argued that this action arises under federal law
because it involves “procedural due process rights guaranteed unde[r] the Fourteenth
Amendment of the United States Constitution, and the atypical and significant hardship
standard of rules of the United States Supreme Court.” Id. at 4. Defendant also appeared
to assert that unspecified federal law governing the “construction of the Pooling and
Servicing Agreement of PLAINTIFF U.S. Bank,” a non-party, gave rise to federal
question jurisdiction. Id. Defendant further contended that diversity jurisdiction exists
because “plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states.” Id. at 9.
On June 10, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause, explaining that both
diversity and federal question jurisdiction appeared to be lacking. Dkt. 6. With regard to
federal question jurisdiction, the Court explained that the existence of such jurisdiction is
governed by the “well-pleaded complaint rule,” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.
386, 392 (1987), which requires that the federal question “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 Franchise Tax Bd. v. Const. Laborers Vacation Trust for S.
Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 13 (1983) (explaining that federal jurisdiction may not be based on an
anticipated defense created by federal law). The Court noted that plaintiff’s complaint
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date

JS-6

Case No.

2:15-cv-03122-CAS(SSx)

Title

‘O’

June 29, 2015

ROLAND LIDNER, ET AL. V. ANGELA WALLACE, ET AL.

contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, and does not present a federal
question.
As to diversity, the Court observed that plaintiff’s complaint limits the amount in
controversy to $10,000, well below the $75,000 threshold required to establish diversity
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Litton Loan Serv., L.P. v.Villegas, No. C
10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (“[T]he amount of
damages sought in the [unlawful detainer] complaint, not the value of the subject real
property, determines the amount in controversy.”). Thus, even assuming the existence of
complete diversity of the parties, the Court explained that diversity jurisdiction is
nonetheless lacking since the amount in controversy requirement is not satisfied.
The June 10, 2015 order to show cause directed defendant to demonstrate why the
Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action no later than June 25, 2015. As of
this date, defendant has not filed a response. Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the
Court’s June 10, 2015 order, this action is hereby REMANDED to the Los Angeles
County Superior Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it
appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.”).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2