JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Roxzana Botas et al
Filing
6
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS by Judge James V. Selna: ORDER remanding case to Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange for lack of jurisdiction. Case number 30-2017-00938381CL-UD-NJC. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (twdb)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 17-01680 JVS (JCGx)
Title
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Botas
Present: The
Honorable
Date
October 11, 2017
James V. Selna
Dwayne Roberts
Not Present
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(IN CHAMBERS)
Order Remanding Action
On September 27, 2017, Roxana Botas et al. (“Botas) removed this case
from the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange. (Docket
No. 1.) She removed this action on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §
1331, diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), the civil rights statute, 29 U.S.C.
1443(1). (Notice of Removal, pp. 1-2.)
The Court has reviewed the jurisdictional allegations and has considered
other possible bases for jurisdiction in light of the facts pled in the Complaint and the
Notice of Removal. The Court finds no basis for jurisdiction, and now remands the case.
The Court must determine jurisdiction on the basis of the case removed. The
underlying action is an unlawful detainer action. No federal claims are asserted (28
U.S.C. § 1331). Federal defenses or federal counterclaims provide no basis to remove an
action which does not otherwise establish federal jurisdiction. See Franchise Tax Board
of State of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust, 643 U.S. 1, 10 (1983); Metro
Ford Truck Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 145 F.3d 320, 326-27 (5th Cir. 1998). There is
no basis for federal question jurisdiction.
It is unclear whether the parties are of diverse citizenship, as required by 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), because the record does not indicate the citizenship of JP Morgan
Chase Bank, N.A. In any event, it is apparent that the amount of relief sought is less than
the jurisdictional minimum of $75,000. The face of the Complaint states that the amount
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
SACV 17-01680 JVS (JCGx)
Title
JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Botas
Date
October 11, 2017
of claimed damages is less than $10,000. There is no basis for diversity jurisdiction.
Moreover, as a California resident (Complaint, ¶ 2), Botas may not remove as cases
solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).
There is no basis for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Section 1443(1)
permits a defendant in state cases to remove the proceedings to the federal district courts
when a defendant is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any
law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens in the United States. In order to
successfully remove, the defendant must satisfy a two-prong test: 1) the rights allegedly
denied must arise under a federal law providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of
racial equality; and 2) the defendant must be denied or unable to enforce the rights in
state courts. Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975); City of Greenwood,
Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 827-28 (1966); Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 792
(1966).
Under the first prong, constitutional or statutory provisions of general applicability
or under statuses not protecting against racial discrimination will not suffice. Johnson,
421 U.S. at 219. Under the second prong, defendant’s federal rights are left to the state
courts except in rare situations where it can be clearly predicted that those rights will
inevitably be denied by the very act of bringing the defendant to trial in state court.
Peacock, 384 U.S. at 828.
The present record satisfies neither prong of the statute. Moreover, there is no
basis to believe that Botas will not be able to enforce any federal rights she may have in
Superior Court.
The case is remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Orange for lack of jurisdiction.
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
dr
Page 2 of 2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?