Singh et al v. Mollenberg et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/19/2016 ORDERING that this case is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendants' 2 , 3 IFP motions are DENIED as MOOT. Copy of remand order sent to other court. CASE CLOSED. (Zignago, K.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

PARMINDER SINGH et al.,

12

Plaintiffs,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:16-cv-02179-KJM-KJN

ORDER

KATHERINE A. MOLLENBERG, et. al,
Defendants.

16
17
18

The issue in this case is unlawful detainment, with an amount in controversy of

19

less than $3,000. See ECF No. 1 at 8. Defendants Katherine A. Mollenberg and Ed Richards

20

filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2, 3.

21

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original

22

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court.

23

28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal

24

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

25

§ 1332. A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not

26

established federal jurisdiction. See Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir.

27

1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). “If at any time

28
1

1

before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case

2

shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

3

Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to Sacramento County Superior

4

Court. Because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, and the main issue turns on state

5

law, removal is improper because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28

6

U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

7
8
9
10
11

This case is remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendants’ IFP
motions are DENIED as MOOT.
This resolves ECF Nos. 1, 2, and 3.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 19, 2016

12
13
14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2