Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Robert L. Hagland et al

Filing 5

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge Andrew J. Guilford: ORDER REMANDING CASE to Orange County Superior Court, Case number 30-02014-00738875. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (twdb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/26/2014: # 1 CV 103) (twdb).

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

SACV 14-1546 AG (JCGx)

Title

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. ROBERT L. HAGLAND and
CLEMENTINA HAGLAND

Present: The Honorable

September 25, 2014

ANDREW J. GUILFORD

Lisa Bredahl
Deputy Clerk
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:

Proceedings:

Date

Not Present
Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Defendant:

[IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING CASE

BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Nationstar Mortgage LLC filed this case in state court, stating a simple cause of
action for unlawful detainer. Defendants Robert L. Hagland and Clementina Haglandthen
filed a Notice of Removal (“Notice”), which removed this case from state to federal court.
(Notice, Dkt. No. 1.) For the reasons that follow, the Court REMANDS the case to state
court.
LEGAL STANDARD
Removal to federal court is generally governed by 28 U.S.C. Section 1441. Suits filed in
state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had original
jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). In other words, federal removal
jurisdiction is proper “[if] the case originally could have been filed in federal court.” City
of Chicago v. Int’l College of Surgeons, 522 U.S. 156, 163 (1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a).
Removal jurisdiction should be strictly construed in favor of remand to protect the
jurisdiction of state courts. Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3

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

SACV 14-1546 AG (JCGx)

Date

September 25, 2014

Title

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. ROBERT L. HAGLAND and
CLEMENTINA HAGLAND

Cir. 2005) (citing Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 108-09 (1941)).
ANALYSIS
Defendants first allege that jurisdiction is proper based on diversity of citizenship under
28 U.S.C. § 1332. ( See Notice ¶¶ 4-8.) Removing defendants have "'always' borne the
burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, including any applicable amount in
controversy requirement." Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir.
2006) (quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566). To satisfy this burden when a plaintiff expressly
alleges an amount in controversy under the jurisdictional minimum, a removing defendant
must establish "to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy exceeds the statutory
minimum." Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat'l Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007)
(emphasis added and internal citations omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs state in their Complaint that the "amount demanded does not exceed
$10,000." (Notice, Ex. 3.) Defendants argue that “Plaintiff’s action against Defendant [is]
to gain possession of a piece of property worth more than $75,000." But title to the
property is not at issue in this case. While Defendants allege that the requirements of §
1332 have been satisfied, they fail to establish – much less to a "legal certainty" – that the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 998.
Defendants next allege that jurisdiction is proper because there is a federal question,
presumably invoking 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants specifically allege that Plaintiffs are
debt collectors who must comply with the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”)
and that the case involves “possible discrimination under [] Title VIII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1968.” (Notice ¶ 9.) But federal questions conferring jurisdiction "must be
disclosed on the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for
removal." California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 839 (9th Cir 2004)
(quoting Gully v. First Nat'l Bank in Meridian , 299 U.S. 109, 112 (1936)). Because the
federal statutes here appear in the Notice, and not in Plaintiff's Complaint, Plaintiff's
action does not "aris[e] under" federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3

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

SACV 14-1546 AG (JCGx)

Date

September 25, 2014

Title

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC v. ROBERT L. HAGLAND and
CLEMENTINA HAGLAND

The Court reminds Defendants that "[s]peedy adjudication is desirable [in unlawful
detainer actions] to prevent subjecting the landlord to undeserved economic loss and the
tenant to unmerited harassment and dispossession when his lease or rental agreement
gives him the right to peaceful and undisturbed possession of the property." Lindsey v.
Normet, 405 U.S. 56, 73 (1972). Improper removal of unlawful detainer cases harms the
concerns stated in Lindsey. Defendants are cautioned not to improperly seek federal
jurisdiction, particularly for delay. See Newman & Cahn, LLP v. Sharp, 388 F. Supp. 2d
115, 119 (E.D.N.Y. 2005) (finding that a removal by a pro se defendant was "frivolous
and unwarranted" and warning "that the filing of another frivolous paper with the Court
may result in monetary sanctions under Rule 11").
DISPOSITION
Defendants fail to establish that federal jurisdiction exists over this case. Thus, the case is
REMANDED to the appropriate state court.
:
Initials of
Preparer

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 3

lmb

0