Kirsio Cruz et al v. Ricardo Oliva et al

Filing 12

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Jesus G. Bernal REMANDING action to San Bernardino County Superior Court, Case number UDFS1509439 Case Terminated. Made JS-6. (mrgo)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL
Case No.

EDCV 16-07 JGB (DTBx)

Date

January 19, 2016

Title Kirsio Cruz v. Ricardo Oliva and Sofia Stublefield

Present: The Honorable

JESUS G. BERNAL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

MAYNOR GALVEZ

Not Reported

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter

Attorney(s) Present for Plaintiff(s):

Attorney(s) Present for Defendant(s):

None Present

None Present

Proceedings:   Minute Order REMANDING Action to California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino (Doc. No. 8) (IN CHAMBERS)
I. BACKGROUND
On December 2, 2015, Plaintiff Kirsio Cruz filed a complaint for unlawful detainer
against Defendants Ricardo Oliva and Sofia Stubblefield in the California Superior Court for the
County of San Bernardino. (“Complaint,” Doc. No. 8-1.) On January 4, 2016, Defendants
removed the action to this Court. (“Notice of Removal,” Doc. No. 1.) Defendants filed a motion
to remand the case to state court on January 13, 2016. (“Motion,” Doc. No. 8.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
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. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th
Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & 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.").

Page 1 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

III. DISCUSSION
Defendants purport to remove this action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction because
diversity of citizenship exists and the “value” of Defendants’ “rights to her property and a fair
trial” exceed $95,000. (Notice of Removal at 2.) Defendants also allege federal question
jurisdiction “on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1443, which creates federal removal jurisdiction for
actions brought against people who cannot enforce in state court ‘any law providing for the equal
rights of citizens of the United States.’” (Id.) The Court addresses each argument in turn.
A. Diversity
Defendants have not met the burden of demonstrating that diversity of citizenship exists.
The Notice of Removal alleges only that “the parties are completely diverse,” (Notice of
Removal at 2), but does not actually allege the citizenship of Plaintiff or Defendants. In the Civil
Cover Sheet attached to the Notice of Removal, Defendants allege that Plaintiff is a citizen of
California. (“Civil Cover Sheet,” Doc. No. 1-1.) The caption of the Notice of Removal states
that Defendants reside in San Bernardino, California—incidentally, the same address that is the
subject of the unlawful detainer action. (Notice of Removal at 1.) As such, Defendants have not
adequately alleged that diversity of citizenship exists.
Further, Defendants have not adequately alleged an amount in controversy in excess of
$75,000. The caption of the unlawful detainer complaint states that the amount demanded is less
than $10,000. (Complaint at 1.) Although a defendant's notice of removal need include only a
plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, Dart
Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014), Defendants’
allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds $95,000 is implausible. In unlawful detainer
actions, the title to the property is not involved—only the right to possession is implicated.
Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977). The amount in controversy is not the
value of the subject real property, but the reasonable rental value per day of the property, up to a
total of $10,000.00. Evans, 67 Cal. App. 3d at 170; see also, U.S. Bank N.A. v. Medina, 2012
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43054, at *4–5, 2012 WL 1136126 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 27, 2012). Here, the
Complaint requests past-due rent of $1,320 plus the reasonable rental value per day beginning on
December 1, 2015. (Complaint at 2.) This is far below the jurisdictional threshold of $75,000.
Thus, Defendants have not established that diversity jurisdiction exists.
B. Federal Question
In order for removal to be proper on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, Defendants
must show that Plaintiff's “‘well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the
cause of action or that the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a
substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 1208,
1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677,
689–90 (2006). “[F]ederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the
face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386,
392 (1987). “A defense is not part of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded statement of his or her
claim.” Rivet v. Regions Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998).
Page 2 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG

Defendants assert that the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to several
federal statutes including 28 U.S.C. §§ 1345, 1367, 1443; 12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536(a); and 31
U.S.C. § 3730. (Notice of Removal at 2, Doc. No. 1.) As noted, however, Plaintiff's only claim
is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action. (See Complaint.); see also Lapeen, 2011
WL 2194117, *3 (“an unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but
is purely a creature of California law”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. 10-8203,
2010 WL 4916578, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010). Whatever federal questions Defendants might
raise in defense to the unlawful detainer action are insufficient to confer removal jurisdiction
over it. See, e.g., U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Barcenas, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173586, at *1 (C.D. Cal.
Dec. 5, 2012) (“Because this is an unlawful detainer action, a federal question does not present
itself.”); Aurora Loan Servs. v. Orozco, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 172200, at *3–4 (C.D. Cal. Dec.
3, 2012) (explaining that unlawful detainer actions are purely matters of state law and that “any
federal defense Defendant raises is irrelevant with regard to jurisdiction”),
Plaintiff's right to relief on the unlawful detainer claim does not depend on the resolution
of a substantial question of federal law. Rather, Plaintiff is entitled to judgment upon
establishing that the subject property was sold in accordance with California Civil Code § 2924
and that the requisite three-day notice to quit was served on Defendants as required by California
Code of Civil Procedure § 1161a. Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 168 (1977).
Accordingly, due to the absence of a federal claim or substantial question of federal law,
Defendants have not shown that the Court has jurisdiction based on a federal question under 28
U.S.C. § 1331.
IV. CONCLUSION
"If it clearly appears on the face of the [Notice of Removal] and any exhibits annexed
thereto that removal should not be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary
remand." 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4), the Court has examined
the Notice of Removal and the Complaint and concludes that Defendants have not met their
burden of establishing that this case is properly in federal court. See In re Ford Motor
Co./Citibank (South Dakota), N.A., 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.").
For the foregoing reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to the California Superior
Court for the County of San Bernardino. The February 8, 2016 hearing is VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Page 3 of 3

CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL

Initials of Deputy Clerk MG