US Bank National Association v. Teresita Bhakta et al

Filing 10

MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER (1) REMANDING CASE TO CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; (2) DENYING MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. NO. 6) AS MOOT by Judge Virginia A. Phillips re: 6 Motion to Remand Case to State Court. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103) (mrgo)

JS-6
PRIORITY SEND
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
Case No. EDCV 14-02270-VAP (SPx)

Date: November 20, 2014

Title:
U.S. BANK, N.A., ETC. -v- BHAKTA, ET AL
===============================================================
PRESENT:
HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:

None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:

None
PROCEEDINGS:

None
MINUTE ORDER (1) REMANDING CASE TO CALIFORNIA
SUPERIOR COURT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY; (2)
DENYING MOTION TO REMAND (DOC. NO. 6) AS MOOT
(IN CHAMBERS)

On October 6, 2014, U.S. Bank, N.A., ("Plaintiff") filed a "Verified Complaint for
Unlawful Detainer" against Defendant Teresita Bhakta. (See Complaint, attached to
Not. of Removal (Doc. No. 1).) On November 5, 2014, Defendant, appearing in pro
se, removed the action on numerous grounds. (See Not. of Removal.) For the
following reasons, the Court REMANDS the action to the California Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand (Doc. No. 6) as MOOT.
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth
Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the
defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 1

EDCV 14-02270-VAP (SPx)
U.S. BANK, N.A., ETC. v. BHAKTA, ET AL
MINUTE ORDER of November 20, 2014

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. FedermanBachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford
Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting federal
jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court."). "If at
any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v.
Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent
obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If
the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court
must dismiss the action.").
Defendant alleges, in part, the basis for removal is federal question and
diversity jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. From the face of the
Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state
law action. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1,
10 (1983) (holding that a defendant may not remove a case to federal court unless
the basis for federal jurisdiction is apparent on the face of the complaint).
Defendant first asserts that jurisdiction exists in this case under federal
question jurisdiction because of a violation of the 14th Amendment of the United
States Constitution and various other federal laws. (Not. of Removal at 1, 7-8.) As
the Complaint in this matter raises a single claim for unlawful detainer, the Court
must conclude that the Defendant intends to raise these claims as a defense.
Section 1331 confers jurisdiction over "civil actions arising under the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The
existence of a federal defense (by itself) does not, however, raise a federal question;
it is therefore an insufficient basis to invoke federal question jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1331, and consequently cannot support removal of an action. Caterpillar
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987).
Defendant alleges diversity jurisdiction as a basis for removal. From the face
of the Complaint, however, Defendant does not meet the diversity of citizenship or
amount in controversy requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §
1332(a). Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is not registered to do business in
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 2

EDCV 14-02270-VAP (SPx)
U.S. BANK, N.A., ETC. v. BHAKTA, ET AL
MINUTE ORDER of November 20, 2014

California, but does not allege Plaintiff’s citizenship or that the parties are citizens of
different States. (Not. of Removal at 6-7.) Defendant also does not allege that the
amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000. Id.
Even if Defendant's Notice of Removal did affirmatively allege the Defendant's
citizenship, Defendant cannot meet the amount-in-controversy requirement. In
unlawful detainer actions, only the right to possession is at issue, not the title to the
property. See Evans v. Superior Court, 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 the value of the subject real property. Id.
Plaintiff filed this action as a “limited jurisdiction” case, where the amount-incontroversy does not exceed $10,000. (See Compl. at 1.) As such, this case
cannot meet the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendant alleges original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, Civil Rights and
Elective Franchise, as another basis for removal. Section 1343 gives federal district
courts original jurisdiction over civil actions to recover damages under 42 U.S.C. §
1985; redress the deprivation by the State of any right, privilege or immunity secured
by the Constitution; and to recover damages or equitable relief under any Act of
Congress providing for the protection of civil rights. 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a). From the
face of the Complaint, Plaintiff’s only claim is for unlawful detainer. Unlawful
detainer does not serve as a basis for original jurisdiction under Section 1343.
Defendant cites a number of other federal statues and rules, but none warrant
removal in this instance.1

1

Defendant also cites 28 U.S.C. §§ 1455, 1466; Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 5.1; and 12 U.S.C. §§ 3751, 3753, 3754, 3755, 3757, 3758, 373, and
3764.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 3

EDCV 14-02270-VAP (SPx)
U.S. BANK, N.A., ETC. v. BHAKTA, ET AL
MINUTE ORDER of November 20, 2014

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this matter to the California Superior Court
for the County of San Bernardino.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL -- GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk md/wr
Page 4