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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?