Playa Villas LLC v. Linear Wave, LLC et al

Filing 7

ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS by Judge Otis D. Wright, II: Case Remanded to Los Angeles Superior Court, Santa Monica Branch-Limited Civil, Case number 17R01495 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (lc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

JS-6

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13
14

Case CV 17-04177-ODW(RAOx)

PLAYA VILLAS, LLC,

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
AND DENYING REQUEST TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

LINEAR WAVE, LLC,
HAROLD McCRIMMON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

I.

18

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff Playa Villas, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in
Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Linear Wave, LLC, Harold
McCrimmon, and Does 1-5 on April 3, 2017. Notice of Removal (“Removal”) and
Attached Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Compl.”). Dkt. No. 1. Defendants
are allegedly unauthorized occupants of real property located in Playa Vista,
California (“the property”). Compl., ¶¶ 3, 6. Plaintiff is the owner of the property.
Id. at ¶¶ 1, 4.
///
///

1

Defendant Harold McCrimmon (“Defendant”) filed a Notice of Removal on

2

June 5, 2017, invoking the Court’s diversity jurisdiction. Removal at 2. The same

3

day, Defendant filed a request to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 3.

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

Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction due to the

22

existence of diversity. Removal at 2. Section 1441 provides, in relevant part, that a

23

defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state court of which the

24

federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Section 1332

25

provides that federal “district courts shall have original jurisdiction over all civil

26

actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, . . ., and is

27

between—(1) citizens of different States . . . .” See id. § 1332.

28

///
2

1

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

2

makes clear that there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction because the amount in

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

limited its demand for damages to an amount not exceeding $10,000.00. (See

10

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

11

below the jurisdictional minimum, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction

12

in this case.

13

III.

14

CONCLUSION

15
16
17
18
19

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: _June 12, 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