GW San Diego Properties LLC v. Sam Gonzales et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Dean D. Pregerson: Case remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Norwalk, Case number 15UN 3496 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lc)

1
2
3
4

JS-6

5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14

Case No. CV 15-08373 DDP (RAOx)

GW SAN DIEGO PROPERTIES,
LLC,
Plaintiff,

[PROPOSED] ORDER
REMANDING ACTION AND
DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.

15

SAM GONZALES, SANDRA
GONZALES, DOES 1-10,

16

Defendants.

17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff GW San Diego Properties, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful

21

detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Sam Gonzales,

22

Sandra Gonzales, and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”) on October 7, 2015. Notice of

23

Removal (“Removal”) & Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”),

24

Dkt. No. 1. As alleged in the complaint, Defendants are the former owners of real

25

property located in Lakewood, California (“the property”). Compl. at ¶¶ 5, 7. On

26

October 1, 2015, Plaintiff purchased the property at a trustee’s sale and thereafter

27

perfected title to the property. Id. at ¶ 7. Plaintiff seeks restitution and possession

28

of the property, damages, and costs of suit. Id. at 4.

1

Defendants Sam Gonzales and Sandra Gonzales filed a Notice of Removal

2

on October 27, 2015, invoking the Court’s federal question and diversity

3

jurisdiction. Removal at 2-4. The same day, Defendant Sam Gonzales filed a

4

Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. Dkt. No. 3.

5

II.

6

DISCUSSION

7

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

8

jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g.,

9

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128

10

L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject

11

matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235,

12

163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is

13

an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc.,

14

336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an

15

opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits,

16

it is not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting

17

internal citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to

18

federal court bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v.

19

Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption”

20

against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th

21

Cir. 1992).

22

Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and the attached

23

Complaint makes clear that this Court has neither federal question nor diversity

24

jurisdiction over the instant matter. Plaintiff could not have brought this action in

25

federal court, in that Plaintiff does not allege facts supplying either federal question

26

or diversity jurisdiction, and therefore removal was improper. See 28 U.S.C.

27

1441(a); Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S.Ct. 2425, 2429, 96

28

L.Ed.2d 318 (1987) (“Only state-court actions that originally could have been filed
2

1

in federal court may be removed to federal court by the defendant.”) (footnote

2

omitted).
First, there is no federal question apparent on the face of Plaintiff’s

3
4

complaint, which alleges only a simple unlawful detainer cause of action. See

5

Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578,

6

*2 (C.D.Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise under

7

federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No.

8

EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D.Cal. Jan. 13, 2010)

9

(remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where

10

plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim).

11

There is no merit to defendants’ apparent contention that federal question

12

jurisdiction exists because defenses to the unlawful detainer action are based on

13

alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. Removal at 2. It is

14

well settled that a “case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a

15

federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint,

16

and even if both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question truly at

17

issue.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. at 2430. Because Plaintiff’s

18

complaint does not present a federal question, either on its face or as artfully pled,

19

the court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

20

Second, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in

21

controversy does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28

22

U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount in controversy is determined from the complaint

23

itself, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is worth a different amount

24

than that pled in the complaint. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 354,

25

81 S.Ct. 1570, 6 L.Ed.2d 890 (1961); Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l

26

Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). In filing the action, Plaintiff explicitly

27

limited its demand for damages to no more than $10,000. (See Compl. at 1.)

28

\\
3

1

Because the amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks appears to be below the

2

jurisdictional minimum, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction in this case.

3

III.

4

CONCLUSION

5
6
7
8
9
10

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior
Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Sam Gonzales’s Request to
Proceed In Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: November 2, 2015__
________________________________________

11

DEAN D. PREGERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16

Presented by:
__________/s/______________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4