THR California L.P. et al v. Claymon Porter et al

Filing 8

ORDER by Judge R. Gary Klausner remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District, Case number 15U15907. IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants Applications to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (shb)

JS-6

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THR CALIFORNIA L.P.,
Plaintiff,

12

[PROPOSED] ORDER
REMANDING ACTION AND
DENYING APPLICATIONS TO
PROCEED WITHOUT
PREPAYING FEES OR COSTS

v.

13
14

Case No. CV 16-00433 RGK (RAOx)

CLAYMON PORTER, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

I.

18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff THR California L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (“Plaintiff”)

19
20

filed an unlawful detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against

21

Claymon Porter, Remeka Sparks-Porter, and Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”) on or

22

about December 23, 2015. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) & Attached Complaint

23

for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1. Defendants are allegedly tenants of

24

real property located in Los Angeles, California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6.

25

Plaintiff is the owner of the property. Id. at ¶4.

26

///

27

///

28

///

1

Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on January 20, 2016, invoking the

2

Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Removal at 2-3. The same day, Defendants

3

Porter and Sparks-Porter filed Applications to Procced Without Prepaying Fees or

4

Costs. Dkt. Nos. 2-3.

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’ contention that federal question jurisdiction

12

exists because Defendants’ Answer to the Complaint depends on a determination of

13

rights and duties under federal law. Removal at ¶ 10. Federal question jurisdiction

14

does not exist because there is a federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim

15

arising under federal law. See Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392-93. As a result,

16

Defendants’ reliance on affirmative defenses based on the Constitution asserted in

17

their Answer cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Second, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in

18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///
3

1

III.

2

CONCLUSION

3
4
5
6

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 Defendants’ Applications to Proceed
Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: January 26, 2016
________________________________________

9

R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11

Presented by:

12

________________________________________

13

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4