Lefever Mattson, Inc. v. Theoudele, et al.

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 5/3/2017 ORDERING that this action is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court and the court DENIES as moot defendant's 2 Motion to Proceed IFP. 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

LEFEVER MATTSON, INC.,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-0885-KJM-AC

v.

ORDER

AMBER THEOUDELE, SABRINA
MOURA, and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive,

16

Defendants.

17
18
On April 26, 2017, defendant Sabrina Moura, proceeding pro se, removed this

19
20

unlawful detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1.1 Moura also filed

21

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

22

the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court and DENIES as moot defendant’s motion to

23

proceed in forma pauperis.

24

/////

25

/////

26
27
28

1

Defendant’s notice erroneously states she is removing the action from Riverside County.
See ECF No. 1 ¶ 8.
1

1

I.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

2

A.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

§ 1332.

8
9

Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil
actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

B.

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

under § 1331 because “Defendant’s [sic] Answer, a pleading[,] depend [sic] on the determination
2

1

of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” ECF No. 1 at 2. The complaint

2

plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, a matter of state law. See

3

ECF No. 1 at 5.

4

As explained above, the court cannot base federal question jurisdiction on Moura’s

5

answer or counterclaim. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and may,

6

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

7

410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint is not based upon federal law,

8

the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

9

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

10

is labeled as a “limited” civil case, meaning plaintiff predicts the total damages will not exceed

11

$10,000. ECF No. 1 at 6. Plaintiff seeks possession of the premises, past due rent of $986, costs

12

and reasonable attorney’s fees, forfeiture of the agreement, and damages of $37.03 per day for

13

each day from April 1, 2017 until the date of judgment. ECF No. 1 at 8. These damages are not

14

likely to total more than $75,000, and Moura has provided no other evidence or allegations as to

15

the amount in controversy. As such, the court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over the

16

action.

17

II.

18

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
For the foregoing reasons, the court has determined sua sponte that it does not

19

have subject matter jurisdiction, and thus remands the case to the Sacramento County Superior

20

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

21

case should be remanded to state court.”). This order moots defendant’s motion for in forma

22

pauperis status.

23

III.

24
25
26
27

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to Sacramento County

Superior Court, and the court DENIES as moot defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: May 3, 2017.

28
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE