Tran v. Allen, et al.

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Troy L. Nunley on 11/2/16 ORDERING that the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento. Defendant's 2 motion for in forma pauperis status is DENIED. CASE CLOSED. Certified copy of order sent to the Superior Court of CA, County of Sacramento. (Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN TRAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-02605-TLN-EFB
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

LEON ALLEN, AND SOJOURNER
TRUTH MULTICULTURAL ART
MUSEUM,

16

Defendants.

17
18

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Leon Allen and Sojourner Truth

19

Multicultural Art Museum’s (jointly “Defendants”) Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1.) Defendant

20

Leon Allen also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 2.) For the reasons set

21

forth below, the Court remands the action to the Superior Court of California, County of

22

Sacramento, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

23

I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

24

On July 12, 2016, Plaintiff John Tran (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action in the

25

Sacramento County Superior Court of California. (Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1-1.) The

26

complaint alleged that on July 11, 2016, Defendants were given a 3-day notice to pay rent and a

27

30-day notice to quit the premises. (ECF No. 1-1 at 2.) Defendants did not comply with either

28

order and the total damages sought are $47,554 as of July 11, 2016. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) On
1

1

November 1, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in the United States District Court,

2

Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) In their Notice of Removal, Defendants allege the

3

Court has jurisdiction under “28 U.S.C. § 1443(1): Denial of due process in Unlawful Detainer.”

4

(ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendants mention 28 U.S.C. 1441, but do not identify which subsection

5

grants the Court subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at 2.)

6

II.

7

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the

8

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal is

9

proper only if the court could have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been

10

STANDARD OF LAW

filed in federal court.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

11

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the

12

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980

13

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time

14

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the

15

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer

16

v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544

17

U.S. 974 (2005).

18

The “presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded

19

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is

20

presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386.

21

Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a

22

federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

23

U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009).

24

III.

ANALYSIS

25

Defendants state in their notice of removal that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. §

26

1441, but does not specify under what subsection. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) However, Defendant does

27

state that the amount in controversy includes up to “an actuary exceeding $75,000.” (ECF No. 1

28

at 2.) After reviewing the Notice of Removal, the Court concludes that Defendants cannot
2

1

present a viable argument to support federal jurisdiction on either basis.

2

Subject matter jurisdiction exists where a federal question arises on the face of the

3

complaint or if there is diversity jurisdiction. Here, there is no federal cause of action that would

4

supply this court with original jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386 (“federal [question]

5

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

6

pleaded complaint”). Plaintiff does not bring any claims within the complaint that involve a

7

federal question. Defendants assert that the state court proceedings violated their due process.

8

However, Defendants assertion is more akin to a defense and a defense that rests on federal

9

question cannot form a basis for federal question jurisdiction. See Id. at 393 (“it is now settled

10

law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense”).

11

Therefore, Defendant is not entitled to removal on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction.

12

Furthermore, Defendants cannot satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under

13

section 1332. Section 1332 states that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all

14

civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of

15

interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different States.” Defendants do not assert that

16

the parties are citizens of different states.

17

Moreover, the burden of proving the amount in controversy depends on what the plaintiff

18

has pleaded. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007).

19

When the complaint alleges damages less than the jurisdictional requirement, the party seeking

20

removal must prove the amount in controversy with legal certainty. Id.; Rynearson v. Motricity,

21

Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1240 (W.D. Wash. 2009). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges damages

22

calculated at $164.38 per day. At the time of filing on July 11, 2016, this resulted in damages

23

amounting to $47,554. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3.) Defendants do not prove with legal certainty that the

24

damages as of removal would exceed $75,000. Instead, Defendants state in the notice of removal

25

without proof that “the amount in controversy includes up to, but is not limited to, an actuary

26

exceeding $75,000, if so determined by plaintiffs.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Therefore, Defendants fail

27

to meet the burden of showing that the amount in controversy is met.

28

Defendants have failed to establish their burden of showing that jurisdiction before this
3

1

Court is proper based on diversity jurisdiction. Therefore, it is appropriate to remand this case,

2

sua sponte, for lack of federal jurisdiction. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed

3

Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004) (“the district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter

4

jurisdiction over the removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

6

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior Court

7

of California, County of Sacramento. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Defendant Leon

8

Allen’s motion for in forma pauperis status (ECF No. 2). Defendant’s motion is blank except for

9

a signature and date, and thus Defendant has not provided any information that would permit this

10

Court to make such a finding. As such, Defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis status is

11

DENIED.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 2, 2016

15
16
Troy L. Nunley
United States District Judge

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4