Strategic Acquisitions, Inc. v. Heredia et al
Filing
3
FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 4/6/15 recommending that this case be REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda. F&R referred to Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr.. 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
STRATEGIC ACQUISITIONS, INC.,
12
13
14
No. 2:15-cv-717-MCE-EFB PS
Plaintiff,
v.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GILBERT HEREDIA; LORI HEREDIA,
15
Defendants.
16
17
On March 31, 2015, defendants, proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal of this
18
unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of California for Alameda County.
19
ECF No. 1. This case is before the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and
20
Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21).1
21
This court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte
22
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing
23
federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed
24
against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.
25
1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the
26
27
28
1
Also on March 31, 2015, defendants filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF No. 2. However, in light of the recommendation herein that
this action be remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, defendants’ request to proceed in
forma pauperis will not be addressed.
1
1
first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below,
2
defendants have failed to meet that burden.
3
The notice of removal states that this court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 28
4
U.S.C. § 1331. ECF. No. 1 at 1. However, a review of the complaint reveals that plaintiff does
5
not allege any federal claims; instead, plaintiff alleges only unlawful detainer under state law.
6
ECF No. 1 at 8-10 (Compl.). The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is
7
governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists
8
only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”
9
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the complaint
10
“establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] the plaintiff's right to
11
relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal law.” Williston Basin
12
Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100
13
(9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28
14
(1983)). Here, plaintiff’s one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law, and under
15
the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s claims or defenses may not serve as a basis for
16
removal. See Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985).
17
Defendants also claim that this court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
18
§ 1332. ECF No. 1 at 2. Defendants contend that diversity of citizenship is present because
19
plaintiff and defendants are citizens of different states and the property at issue is worth more
20
than $75,000. Id. Even assuming complete diversity is present, defendants have not shown that
21
the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. The amount in controversy is determined from the
22
complaint itself, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is worth a different amount
23
than that pled by plaintiff. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 354 (1961);
24
Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). The complaint alleges
25
that that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. ECF No. 1 at 8. Furthermore, the
26
value of the property at issue does not determine the amount in controversy. See also Fed. Home
27
Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Cantillano, 2012 WL 1193613, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (“The
28
appropriate dollar amount in determining the amount of controversy in unlawful detainer actions
2
1
is the rental value of the property, not the value of the property as a whole.”); Fed. Home Loan
2
Mortg. Corp. v. Pulido, 2012 WL 540554 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012) (“In unlawful detainer
3
actions, the right to possession is contested, not title to the property, and plaintiffs may collect
4
only damages that are incident to that unlawful possession.”). Consequently, because defendants
5
have failed to demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement is met,
6
the court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the action. 2
7
Furthermore, defendants removed this action to the wrong federal court. As the state
8
action was filed in Alameda County Superior Court, defendants should have sought to remove
9
this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. See 28
10
U.S.C. § 1441(a) (providing that a defendant may remove “to the district court of the United
11
States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”); 28 U.S.C.
12
84(a) (providing that Alameda County is in the Northern District of California). Given that there
13
is no federal subject matter jurisdiction over the instant action, the court declines to transfer this
14
matter to the Northern District and recommends remand to state court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a),
15
1447(c).
16
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-captioned case be
17
REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of Alameda.
18
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge
19
assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days
20
after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written
21
objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned
22
“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections
23
shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file
24
/////
25
/////
26
27
28
2
Nor does it appear that removal by defendants would be proper under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1441(b), which permits removal in diversity cases only when “none of the parties in interest
properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”
3
1
objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order.
2
Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th
3
Cir. 1991).
4
DATED: April 6, 2015.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?