U.S. Bank National Association v. Dina Navarro et al

Filing 12

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS REMANDING action to state court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez: Because the Court does not retain subject matter jurisdiction, it hereby REMANDS the action to state court. (see document for further details) Made JS-6 (bm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 18-4589 PSG (JEMx)

Title

U.S. Bank National Association v. Jeannie Assimos, et al.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 19, 2018

Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

Wendy Hernandez

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):

Not Present

Not Present

Proceedings (In Chambers):

Order REMANDING action to state court

Before the court is a notice of removal filed by Defendant Jeannie Assimos
(“Defendant”). See Dkt. # 1 (“NOR”). After reviewing the notice, the Court concludes that it
does not retain subject matter jurisdiction over this action and so REMANDS it to state court.
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity of citizenship between the parties, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity
between the parties and the $75,000 amount in controversy requirement must be met. See
Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). For federal
question jurisdiction, the well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to be evident
from the face of the complaint. See Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). If
at any time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See
28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72,
87 (1991). There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking
removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Hunter v. Philip Morris
USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). If there is any ambiguity as to the propriety of
removal, federal jurisdiction must be rejected. See id.
Defendant first asserts that jurisdiction exists on the basis of a federal question. See Dkt.
# 1 (“NOR”) ¶ 3. Having reviewed her notice and the attached complaint, the Court concludes
that there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction. Defendant alleges that the “[Plaintiff’s]
conduct relates to the enforcement of a security interest,” and appears to assert that the conduct
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692, et seq. Id.
However, federal defenses or federal counterclaims provide no basis to remove an action over
which the Court does not otherwise retain federal jurisdiction. See Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v.
CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

CV 18-4589 PSG (JEMx)

Date

Title

June 19, 2018

U.S. Bank National Association v. Jeannie Assimos, et al.

Constr. Laborers Vacation Tr. for S. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983). Because the underlying
complaint asserts only a state law unlawful detainer claim over which this Court does not have
jurisdiction, there is no basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Defendant also fails to show a basis for diversity jurisdiction under § 1332. See NOR ¶ 5.
In what appears to be a counterclaim for injunctive relief, Defendant seeks use the value of the
property in question to satisfy the amount in controversy requirement. Id. ¶ 7. This fails
because diversity jurisdiction must be satisfied by the complaint. See Freeport-McMoRan v. K
N Energy, 498 U.S. 426, 428 (1991). Here, Plaintiff seeks only past due rent and fair rental
value, together well below the $75,000 minimum requirement. See NOR, Ex. A. Moreover,
Defendant neither provides her own citizenship nor properly identifies that of Plaintiff, which is
a trust. Id. ¶ 6. For the purposes of diversity jurisdiction, a “trust has the citizenship of its
trustee or trustees.” See Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th
Cir. 2006). Defendant instead provides Plaintiff’s principle place of business, which is
insufficient. NOR ¶ 7. Because the amount in controversy is not satisfied and diverse
citizenship has not been plead, the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter.
Because the Court does not retain subject matter jurisdiction, it hereby REMANDS the
action to state court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

CV-90 (10/08)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 2