243 North Meridian LLC v. Rene Valencia et al

Filing 3

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION by Judge George H. King remanding case to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDFS1400702. (See document for specifics) (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (adu)

1
2

3
4

5

6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

243 NORTH MERIDIAN, LLC,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. ED CV 14-923-UA (DUTYx)
ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING
IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

RENE VALENCIA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18
19
20

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court
summarily because defendant removed it improperly.
On May 8, 2014, defendant Mayra Diaz, having been sued in what appears

21

to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court, lodged a

22

Notice of Removal of that action to this Court, and also presented an application to

23

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court has denied the latter application under

24

separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To prevent the

25

action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to

26

remand the action to state court.

27

Simply stated, plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in

28

the first place, in that defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either
1

1 diversity or federal question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28
2

U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546,

3

563, 125 S. Ct. 2611, 162 L. Ed. 2d 502 (2005). Here, defendant has asserted both

4

federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as her bases for removal.

5

But the unlawful detainer action to be removed does not actually raise any federal

6

legal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc.

7 v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S. Ct. 3229,92 L. Ed. 2d 650 (1986) ("the
8 question for removal jurisdiction must ... be determined by reference to the 'well9

pleaded complaint"'). Further, even if complete diversity of citizenship exists, the

10

amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold of

11

$75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Contrary to defendant's contention in the

12 Notice of Removal, the unlawful detainer complaint asserts that the amount in
13
14

controversy does not exceed $1 0,000.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the

15

Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County, Fontana District, 17780

16

Arrow Boulevard, Fontana, CA 923 35, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction

17

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this

18

Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the

19

parties.

20
21

DATED:

Sj t.)"J I vf

22
23

Presented by:

24
25
26

Shen Pym
United ~tates Magistrate Judge

27
28
2