Morgan Picks Two, LLC v. Modabber et al

Filing 6

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson remanding case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case number 17PDUD00686. Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (See document for details) (mrgo)

JS-6

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

CV 17-8194 PA (KSx)

Title

Morgan Picks Two, LLC v. Tina Modabber, et al.

Present: The
Honorable

Date

November 13, 2017

PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Kamilla Sali-Suleyman

Not Reported

N/A

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None

None

Proceedings:

IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER

The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by defendant Tina Modabber (“Defendant”)
on November 9, 2017. In its Complaint, plaintiff Morgan Picks Two, LLC (“Plaintiff”) alleges a single
state law claim for unlawful detainer. Defendant, who is appearing pro se, asserts that this Court has
subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and
diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
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, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against
removal jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal,
the defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927
(9th Cir. 1986).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, this Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under”
federal law. Removal based on § 1331 is governed by the “well-pleaded complaint” rule. Caterpillar,
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, 107 S. Ct. 2425, 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (1987). Under the rule,
“federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly
pleaded complaint.” Id. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318. If the complaint does not specify
whether a claim is based on federal or state law, it is a claim “arising under” federal law only if it is
“clear” that it raises a federal question. Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus,
plaintiff is generally the “master of the claim.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392, 107 S. Ct. at 2429, 96 L.
Ed. 2d 318. “A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense, including the
defense of pre-emption.” Id. at 393, 107 S. Ct. at 2430, 96 L. Ed. 2d 318 (emphasis in original). The
only exception to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,”
such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v.
First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, the underlying Complaint contains only a single cause of action for unlawful detainer,
which does not arise under federal law. In her Notice of Removal, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff
violated the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act. (Notice of Removal p.2.) However, Defendant’s
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

JS-6

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

CV 17-8194 PA (KSx)

Date

Title

November 13, 2017

Morgan Picks Two, LLC v. Tina Modabber, et al.

allegations concerning Plaintiff’s potential violations of federal law do not constitute a proper basis for
removal, as neither a federal defense nor an actual or anticipated federal counterclaim forms a basis for
removal. See, e.g., Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 61–62, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206
(2009) (“Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, however, a suit ‘arises under’ federal law
‘only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal
law].’”). Defendant has therefore failed to invoke this Court’s federal question jurisdiction.
Defendant has also failed to show that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires all plaintiffs to have different citizenship
from all defendants and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 2402, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978). To
establish citizenship for diversity purposes, a natural person must be a citizen of the United States and
be domiciled in a particular state. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir.
1983). Persons are domiciled in the places they reside with the intent to remain or to which they intend
to return. See Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853, 857 (9th Cir. 2001). The citizenship of a
partnership or other unincorporated entity is the citizenship of its members. See Johnson v. Columbia
Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[L]ike a partnership, an LLC is a citizen of
every state of which its owners/members are citizens.”); Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles
Land & Water Co., 299 F.3d 643, 652 (7th Cir. 2002) (“the relevant citizenship [of an LLC] for
diversity purposes is that of the members, not of the company”). “Absent unusual circumstances, a
party seeking to invoke diversity jurisdiction should be able to allege affirmatively the actual citizenship
of the relevant parties.” Kanter, 265 F.3d at 857.
Here, Defendant has failed to establish that there is complete diversity or that the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000. First, neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal affirmatively
allege either party’s citizenship. Second, in unlawful detainer actions, the title to the property is not
involved; only the right to possession is implicated. Evans v. Super. Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170
(1977). Thus, the amount in controversy is determined by the amount of damages sought in the
Complaint, rather than by the value of the subject real property. Id. Here, Plaintiff filed a Limited Civil
Case, which is limited to damages of less than $10,000. Given that the value of the subject real property
is not in controversy, Defendant has failed to show that this action meets the minimum jurisdictional
requirement.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet her burden of showing that federal
question or diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court, Case No.
17PDUD00686. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Defendant’s request to proceed in forma pauperis (Docket
No. 2) is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2