East Carson Housing Partners LP v. Veronica Gipson et al

Filing 8

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERISby Judge Otis D. Wright, II. Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, SouthEast District, Norwalk, Case number 17UN0135(Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

JS-6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15

Case No. CV 17-01284-ODW (RAOx)

EAST CARSON HOUSING
PARTNERS LP,
Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

v.
VERONICA GIPSON, Does 1 to 10,
inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17
18

I.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff East Carson Housing Partners LP (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful

21

detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Veronica Gipson and

22

Does 1 to 10 (“Defendants”) on or about January 13, 2017. Notice of Removal

23

(“Removal”) & Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1.

24

Defendants are allegedly unauthorized tenants of real property located in Carson,

25

California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the property.

26

Id. at ¶¶ 2, 4.

27
28

Defendant Gipson filed a Notice of Removal on February 16, 2017, invoking
the Court’s diversity jurisdiction, asserting that Plaintiff is not a resident of

1

California and that damages exceed the amounts noted in 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

2

Removal at 2. The same day, Defendant Gipson filed a Request to Proceed In

3

Forma Pauperis. Dkt. No. 2.

4

II.

5

DISCUSSION

6

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

Cir. 1992).

21

As noted above, Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter

22

jurisdiction due to the existence of diversity.

23

provides, in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil

24

action in state court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28

25

U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1332 provides that federal “district courts shall have

26

original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the

27

sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1)

28

citizens of different States . . . .” See id. § 1332(a).
2

(Removal at 2.)

Section 1441

1

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

2

Complaint makes clear that this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the

3

instant matter.

4

jurisdiction threshold of $75,000.

5

controversy is determined from the complaint itself, unless it appears to a legal

6

certainty that the claim is worth a different amount than that pled in the complaint.

7

Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 354, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 6 L.Ed.2d 890

8

(1961); Lowdermilk v. United States Bank Nat’l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir.

9

2007). In filing the action, Plaintiff explicitly limited its demand for damages by

10

indicating that the amount demanded “does not exceed $10,000.” (See Compl. at

11

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

12

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

13

III.

14

CONCLUSION

15
16
17
18
19

The amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity
See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

The amount in

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’s Request to Proceed In Forma
Pauperis is DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

DATED: _February 28, 2017
________________________________________

22

OTIS D. WRIGHT II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27

Presented by:
________________________________________

ROZELLA A. OLIVER
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
3