Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. v. Varinder Kumar et al

Filing 7

MINUTE (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR IMPROPER REMOVAL. (Case Terminated. Made JS-6) (mba)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JS-6

CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 16-01064-CJC(JCGx)

Date: June 14, 2016

Title: SUNTRUST MORTGAGE, INC. V. VARINDER KUMAR ET AL.

PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Melissa Kunig
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:

None Present

N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:

None Present

PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR
IMPROPER REMOVAL
On June 8, 2016, Defendant Varinder Kumar removed this unlawful detainer
action originally filed in Orange County Superior Court by Plaintiff Suntrust Mortgage,
Inc. (Dkt. 1 [“Notice of Removal”].) A defendant may remove a civil action filed in
state court to a federal district court if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction
over the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). A federal court can assert subject matter
jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions arising under federal law or (2) are
between diverse parties and involve an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the
burden of establishing that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the
action, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v.
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if
there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). Whether subject
matter jurisdiction exists may be raised by the Court sua sponte at any time. See 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.”).
Here, Defendant asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction because the
parties are completely diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 16-01064-CJC(JCGx)

Date: June 14, 2016
Page 2

U.S.C. § 1332. However, the state court complaint clearly seeks damages no greater than
$10,000. (See Dkt. 4 at 4; 6.) And Kumar’s argument that the amount-in-controversy is
satisfied because he “seeks to quiet title and maintain an interest” in the property is
nonsensical. Kumar is the defendant in this case; he is not seeking anything. The Court
therefore determines that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and, on its own motion,
REMANDS this action to Orange County Superior Court.

sr
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN

Initials of Deputy Clerk MKU