Barbara Rosenberg v. Hatia Lewis

Filing 7

MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT by Judge Dolly M. Gee: Defendant has failed to meet her burden of showing federal question jurisdiction exists. Defendant has made no plausible allegations showing how those damages would exceed $75,000. Nor has Defendant alleged diversity of citizenship. The Court thus REMANDS the action to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case Number 17R01892. See document for further details. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (gk)

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

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

CV 17-4652 DMG (AFMx)

June 27, 2017

Title Barbara Rosenberg v. Hatia Lewis
Present: The Honorable

DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kane Tien
Deputy Clerk

Not Reported
Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s)
Not Present

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s)
Not Present

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS – ORDER REMANDING MATTER TO STATE COURT
On April 27, 2017, Barbara Rosenberg (“Plaintiff”) instituted unlawful detainer
proceedings against Hatia Lewis (“Defendant”) in state court. Defendant has allegedly
continued in unlawful possession of the property located at 115 E. Beach Avenue, #2,
Inglewood, CA 90302 (the “Property”) that is owned by Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 3.) On August 27,
2012, Plaintiff entered into a month to month tenancy with Defendant at a rate of $925.00 per
month. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Plaintiff estimates the fair rental value of the property as $30.83 per day.
(Compl. ¶ 11.) Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer Complaint in state court after Defendant
failed to comply with the notice to quit. The face of the Complaint states that the amount
demanded does not exceed $10,000, and Plaintiff specifically alleges past due rent accruing at a
rate of $30.83 per day since April 25, 2017 and reasonable attorney fees. Defendant filed a
Demurrer to the Complaint claiming that the Complaint is defective in that the Notice to Quit
was defective. (Notice of Removal ¶ 8.) Defendant removed the action to this Court on June 23,
2017. Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction in this Court: “Federal question exists
because Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend on the determination of Defendant’s rights
and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (Notice of Removal, ¶ 10.) Diversity jurisdiction is not
alleged. (Civil Cover Sheet at 1.)
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only
over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life
Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s duty to always examine its own subject
matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may
remand a case summarily if there is an obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc.
v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice
and an opportunity to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is
not so when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal citations).
A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden of
proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). A
CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT

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

CV 17-4652 DMG (AFMx)

JS-6 / REMAND

Date

June 27, 2017

Title Barbara Rosenberg v. Hatia Lewis
“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
567 (9th Cir. 1992).
Subject matter jurisdiction exists over civil actions “arising under” federal law. 28 U.S.C. §
1331. A claim arises under federal law “when a federal question is presented on the face of
plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).
Plaintiff’s Complaint herein contains a single cause of action for unlawful detainer, a state law
claim. There is no federal question jurisdiction even if Defendant alleged an actual or
anticipated federal defense to the claim or a counterclaim arising under federal law. See
Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. at 392-93; Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). This is a
simple state law unlawful detainer case, and there is no federal question presented on the face of
Plaintiff’s Complaint. Accordingly, Defendant has failed to meet her burden of showing federal
question jurisdiction exists.
Moreover, the Notice of Removal has not alleged diversity jurisdiction, and it is clear
from the face of the Complaint that no diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The
amount demanded on the face of the Complaint is alleged not to exceed $10,000 -- well below
the statutory threshold of $75,000. The Complaint specifically asserts a claim for ongoing
damages at a rate of $30.83 per day since April 25, 2017 and reasonable attorney fees. (Compl.
at ¶¶ 11, 17.) Defendant has made no plausible allegations showing how those damages would
exceed $75,000. Nor has Defendant alleged diversity of citizenship.
The Court thus REMANDS the action to state court forthwith and orders the Court Clerk
promptly to serve his order on all parties who have appeared in this action.

CV-90

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk KT