Hillside Villa Apts. v. Glen Booth

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CIVIL ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT by Judge R. Gary Klausner. For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED Case remanded to Superior Court of CA County of Los Angeles, Case number 16U11674. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Mailed 11/22/16) (lom)

JS-6

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

CV 16-8656-RGK (Ex)

Title

HILLSIDE VILLA APTS. v. GLEN BOOTH

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 22, 2016

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 CIVIL ACTION TO
SUPERIOR COURT

On November 21, 2016, Defendant Glen Booth (“Defendant”), representing himself in pro se,
removed this action from state court to the United States District Court, Central District of California.
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 (South Dakota), 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.”).
As to federal question, Defendant has not set forth any federal law or portions of the Constitution
that have been violated. The Court’s careful review of the Complaint filed by Hillside Villa Apts.
(“Plaintiff”) on October 7, 2016, 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 for which the Court would have “original
jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Accordingly, any removal based on federal question jurisdiction is
improper.
As to diversity jurisdiction, the Complaint for unlawful detainer indicates on its face that the
amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. Federal Jurisdiction based on complete diversity
requires that all parties to the action are completely diverse in citizenship, and that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. Since the unlawful detainer action does not meet the jurisdictional
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2

threshold, Defendant’s removal based on diversity jurisdiction is improper.
For the foregoing reasons, the above-entitled case is ordered REMANDED to the Superior
Court for all further proceedings for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

:
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 2