City of Jurupa Valley, et al v. King s Palace Group Center, et al

Filing 23

ORDER Remanding Action to Superior Court by Judge David O. Carter. For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 2016-1604667. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties. (see document for details). Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (dro)

JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 16-1857-DOC (KK)

Date: October 7, 2016

Title: CITY OF JURUPA VALLEY, ET AL V. KING’S PALACE GROUP CENTER, ET AL.

PRESENT:
THE HONORABLE DAVID O. CARTER, JUDGE
Deborah Goltz
Courtroom Clerk

Not Present
Court Reporter

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFF:

ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANT:

None Present

None Present

PROCEEDINGS (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO
SUPERIOR COURT [23]
On August 28, 2016, Defendant King’s Palace Group Center (“King’s Palace” or
“Defendant”) removed this case from Riverside County Superior Court. Notice of
Removal (Dkt. 1). In his original Notice of Removal, Defendant argues the action may be
removed to federal court “because it is a civil action between citizens of this state and the
matter in controversy exceed the sum or value of $75,000.” Defendant filed an Amended
Notice of Removal (“Notice”) on September 13, 2016 (Dkt. 18). The Amended Notice
argues removal is proper because this is an “action over which the Court has original
jurisdiction.” Notice at 2.
After considering the Notice and the papers filed in conjunction with the Notice,
the Court determines it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the
Court REMANDS this case to Riverside County Superior Court.
This is the second time Defendant has removed this case to federal court. The first
time was on August 8, 2016. See City of Jurupa Valley v. King’s Palace Group, No. 1 CV
16-1711-DOC (C.D.Cal. Aug. 25, 2016). This Court remanded for lack of jurisdiction on
August 25, 2016. City of Jurupa Valley, No. 9 CV 16-1711-DOC. Defendant has now

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 16-1857-DOC (KK)

Date: October 7, 2016
Page 2

added a counterclaim against Plaintiff/Counterdefendant alleging violations of federal
law (Dkt. 20).
I.

Legal Standard

“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). Because 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c) contains the word “shall,” not the word “may,” the court is powerless to hear
the case when it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, and must remand the case to the state
court. See Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87
(1991) (“[A] finding that removal was improper deprives that court of subject matter
jurisdiction and obliges a remand under the terms of § 1447(c).”). Additionally, the court
may remand sua sponte. Briano v. Conseco Life Ins. Co., 126 F. Supp. 2d 1293, 1295
(C.D. Cal. 2000).
A defendant may generally remove a civil action from a state court to a federal
court “embracing the place where such action is pending” if the action could have been
brought in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A federal court has federal
question jurisdiction over “civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of
the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478
U.S. 804, 807–08 (1986). A federal court has diversity jurisdiction if: (1) the controversy
is between “citizens of different States;” and (2) the amount in controversy exceeds the
sum or value of $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332; see Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger,
437 U.S. 365, 373–74 (1978). Therefore, if the district court has a basis for subject matter
jurisdiction under either 28 U.S.C. § 1331 or 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the action may be
removed by a defendant. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68–69 (1996); Wis.
Dept. of Corrs. v. Schacht, 524 U.S. 381, 386 (1998).
II.

Discussion

The Court has reviewed the Defendant’s Notice and the underlying Complaint and
finds the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction in this case. For diversity jurisdiction to
be proper, the parties must be completely diverse and the amount in controversy must
exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Complete diversity requires the defendant and
plaintiff to be from different states. Id.; see Merrell Dow Pharm. Inc. v. Thompson, 478
U.S. 804, 807–08 (1986). Defendant “bears the burden of establishing that removal is
proper.” Galileo, 2009 WL 3157411, at *2 (quoting Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564,
566–67 (9th Cir. 1992)). In his Notice, Defendant states that King’s Palace is a California
corporation. Notice at 1. Plaintiffs are the People of the State of California and the City of
Jurupa Valley, a California municipal corporation. Id. Based on the Complaint and the

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SA CV 16-1857-DOC (KK)

Date: October 7, 2016
Page 3

Notice, the Court finds that there is no diversity between these parties. Consequently,
there can be no jurisdiction under § 1332.
The Court also concludes there is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
“The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question to be evident from the face
of the plaintiff’s complaint for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to exist.” Galileo Fin.
v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660 PSG, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept.
24, 2009) (citing Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (emphasis
added)). All causes of action stated in the complaint arise from California statutes and
Jurupa Valley municipal codes. See generally Notice Ex. A (“Complaint”). There is no
federal statute or case law cited in the Complaint. “Thus, from the face of the complaint,
it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.” Id.; see also IndyMac Fed.
Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo No. 09–2337, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010)
(remanding action sua sponte to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction where
plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim).
“[A] counterclaim—which appears as part of the defendant’s answer, not as part
of the plaintiff’s complaint—cannot serve as the basis for arising under jurisdiction.”
Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002).
Federal question jurisdiction exists only when it appears “on the face of the plaintiff’s
properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987)
(emphasis added). Defendant has filed a counterclaim, but only the face of Plaintiff’s
complaint is relevant to the Court’s analysis. Because the Court has concluded there is no
jurisdiction on the face of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court cannot hear this case.
The Supreme Court has held that federal courts may impose sanctions under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 even when they lack subject matter jurisdiction over
the initial controversy. Willy v. Coastal Corp., 503 U.S. 131, 139 (1992). The Court
admonishes Defendant not to seek further removal to this Court without proper grounds
for federal jurisdiction.
III.

Disposition

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior
Court of California, County of Riverside, Case No. 2016-1604667.
The Clerk shall serve this minute order on the parties.
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk: djg