Sequoia Equities, L.P. v. Daedone

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/20/2017 REMANDING CASE to Sacramento County Superior Court #17UD01233. Certified Copy of remand order sent to other court; Defendant's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP is DENIED as MOOT. CASE CLOSED(Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SEQUOIA EQUITIES, L.P.,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-00795-KJM-EFB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MICHELE A. DAEDONE,
Defendant.

16
17
18

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

19

than $3,000. See ECF No. 1. On April 17, 2017, defendant Michele A. Daedone removed this

20

case from state court to federal court. Id. Additionally, defendant filed a motion to proceed in

21

forma pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 2.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

4

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

5

on state law, removal is improper because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction

6

under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441.

7

I.

8
9
10
11

CONCLUSION
This case is remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendant’s IFP

motion is DENIED as MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: April 20, 2017

12
13

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2