CAM IX Trust v. Bertsch

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 1/5/2017 REMANDING CASE to El Dorado County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. DENYING as MOOT 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. CASE CLOSED (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CAM IX TRUST,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:16-cv-03026-KJM-DB

v.

ORDER

JOHN E. BERTSCH,

15

Defendant.

16
17
18

On December 28, 2016, defendant John E. Bertsch, proceeding pro se, removed

19

this unlawful detainer action from El Dorado County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Bertsch also

20

filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. As explained below, the court

21

REMANDS the case to the El Dorado County Superior Court and DENIES as moot Bertsch’s

22

motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

23

I.

24
25

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A.

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

26

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28

27

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

28
1

1

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

2

§ 1332.

3

Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil

4

actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

5

Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when

6

the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].”

7

Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction

8

cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556

9

U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

10

Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the

11

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 U.S.C.

12

§ 1332. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in

13

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount

14

in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co.,

15

319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).

16

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

17

established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it

18

appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded . . . .”);

19

Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic

20

Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)).

21

B.

22

Discussion
Bertsch’s Notice of Removal asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction

23

under § 1331 because “Defendant alleges that the plaintiffs intentionally violated the federal

24

statute, [Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act].” ECF No. 1 at 2. The complaint plaintiff filed

25

in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, which is a matter of state law. ECF No. 1

26

at 8.

27
28

As explained above, Bertsch’s answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for
federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and
2

1

may, as here, “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill

2

Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show that it

3

is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

4

Neither does the court appear to have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint

5

expressly states that “demand does not exceed $10,000.” ECF No. 1 at 8. Additionally, the

6

complaint seeks possession of the premises, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and damages of

7

$91.67 per day for each day from October 5, 2016, until the date of judgment. ECF No. 1 at 10.

8

These damages are not likely to total more than $75,000, and Bertsch has provided no other

9

evidence or allegations as to the amount in controversy. According, the court cannot exercise

10

diversity jurisdiction over the action.

11

II.

12

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
For the foregoing reasons, the court has determined sua sponte that it lacks subject

13

matter jurisdiction, and thus remands the case to the El Dorado County Superior Court. Cf.

14

Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be

15

remanded to state court.”). As a result, defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis status is moot.

16

III.

CONCLUSION

17

For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to El Dorado County

18

Superior Court, and defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

This order resolves ECF Nos. 1 and 2.

21

DATED: January 5, 2017.

22
23
24

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
3