THR California L.P. v. Grant
Filing
4
ORDER AND FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/8/15 ORDERING that 2 Motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied without prejudice. RECOMMENDING that this action be summarily remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. F&R referred to Judge Troy L. Nunley. Objections to F&R due within fourteen days. (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
THR CALIFORNIA L.P.,
12
13
14
15
No. 2:14-cv-2937 TLN CKD PS
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER and FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
CHANTAE GRANT,
Defendant.
16
17
This action was removed from state court. Removal jurisdiction statutes are strictly
18
construed against removal. See Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.
19
1979). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the
20
first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The party invoking removal
21
bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039
22
(9th Cir. 2009). Where it appears the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall
23
be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
24
In conclusory fashion, the removal petition alleges the complaint is subject to federal
25
question jurisdiction. Removal based on federal question jurisdiction is proper only when a
26
federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint. Caterpillar
27
Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). However, the exhibits attached to the removal
28
petition establish the state court action is nothing more than a simple unlawful detainer action,
1
1
and the state court action is titled as such. To the extent defendant attempts to invoke diversity
2
jurisdiction, the monthly rent at issue is $1,275, the past-due rent is $1,300 and the fair rental
3
value of the premises is $41.01 per day. In light of the allegations of the complaint regarding
4
damages, the amount in controversy required for diversity jurisdiction plainly cannot be met.
5
Defendant has failed to meet her burden of establishing federal jurisdiction and the matter should
6
therefore be remanded. See generally Singer v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.,
7
116 F.3d 373, 375-376 (9th Cir. 1997).
8
9
10
11
12
13
Defendant has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Because the court will
recommend remand of this action, the motion will be denied without prejudice.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 2) is denied without prejudice; and
IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-entitled action be summarily remanded
to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
14
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
15
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
16
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
17
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
18
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
19
shall be served and filed within seven days after service of the objections. The parties are advised
20
that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District
21
Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
22
Dated: January 8, 2015
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
23
24
25
26
4 THR-grant.remud.ifp
27
28
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?