CKO Investment Group v. Willilam G Ebe et al

Filing 6

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED by Judge Christina A. Snyder. Response to Order to Show Cause due by 7/1/2013. SEE ORDER. (im)

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

EDCV13-580 CAS (OPx)

Title

CKO INVESTMENT GROUP V. WILLIAM G EBE, ET AL.

Present: The Honorable

Date

June 17, 2013

CHRISTINA A. SNYDER

Catherine Jeang
Deputy Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

N/A
Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants

Not present

Not present

Proceedings:

I.

(In Chambers:) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS
CASE SHOULD NOT BE REMANDED

INTRODUCTION

On February 25, 2013, plaintiff CKO Investment Group filed an unlawful detainer
action in San Bernardino County Superior Court against pro se defendant William G.
Ebe.
On March 28, 2013, defendant filed a notice of removal to this Court pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1446. Defendant contends that this court has jurisdiction to hear the instant
case under the Fourth and Seventh Amendments of the United States Constitution. In
addition, defendant asserts that diversity jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
II.

ANALYSIS

After reviewing defendant’s notice of removal, the Court finds that it appears to
lack jurisdiction over the instant case. First, cases raising a question “arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States” may be removed to federal court. 28
U.S.C. § 1331. Whether a case arises under federal law is generally determined by the
well-pleaded complaint rule: “a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of
the United States must be an element, and an essential one, of the plaintiff’s cause of
action.” California Shock Trauma Air Rescue v. State Comp. Ins. Fund, 636 F.3d 538,
541 (9th Cir. 2011) (citations omitted). A defendant’s attempt at creating federal subject
matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a notice of removal must fail. McAtee
v. Capital One, F.S.B., 479 F.3d 1143, 1145 (9th Cir. 2007).
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 2

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

EDCV13-580 CAS (OPx)

Date

June 17, 2013

Title

CKO INVESTMENT GROUP V. WILLIAM G EBE, ET AL.

Here, the complaint asserts only a single state law claim for unlawful detainer,
which does not give rise to a federal question. See Dkt. No. 1. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust
Co. v. Leonardo, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 83854, *2 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 1, 2011) (“[T]he
complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a
matter of state law.”). Defendant cannot create federal subject matter jurisdiction by
attempting to raise a defense under the Constitution or any other body of federal law. See
McAtee, 479 F.3d at 1145. Simply put, “[a] federal defense or counter-claim does not
give rise to federal-question jurisdiction.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers
Vacation Trust for s. Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 14 (1983). Accordingly, the Court appears to lack
subject matter jurisdiction based on a federal question. Suarez, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
82300 at *6.
Second, defendant claims that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on
diversity of citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, defendant does not allege that
plaintiff and defendant are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). Nor does
defendant appear to adequately assert that the amount in controversy exceeds the
jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In unlawful detainer actions,
the title to the property is not at issue—only the right to possession. See Evans v.
Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977). As such, the amount in controversy is
determined by the amount of damages sought in the complaint, rather than the value of
the subject real property. Id. Here, plaintiff seeks less than $25,000 in damages. See
Dkt. No. 1. Therefore, the Court does not appear to have subject matter jurisdiction
based on diversity of citizenship.
III.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, defendant is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE on or before July
1, 2013, why the instant action should not be remanded for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
00
Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

:

00

CMJ

Page 2 of 2