Guillory v. Guillory et al
Filing
4
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/11/17 ORDERING that this action is REMANDED to Solano County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. and Defendants' MOTIONS to proceed in forma pauperis 2 and 3 are DENIED. CASE CLOSED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
BRANDY GUILLORY,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
No. 2:17-cv-1814-KJM-AC-PS
v.
ORDER
RICKEY GUILLORY, VERONICA
GUILLORY, and DOES 1 to 10,
Defendants.
16
17
On August 31, 2017, defendants Rickey Guillory and Veronica Guillory,
18
19
proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from Solano County Superior Court.
20
ECF No. 1. Defendants also filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2–3. As
21
explained below, the court REMANDS the case to the Solano County Superior Court and
22
DENIES as moot Defendants’ motions 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
22
B.
Discussion
Defendants’ Notice of Removal asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction
23
under § 1331 because “Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of
24
Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” ECF No. 1 at 2. The complaint
25
plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, which is a matter of state
26
law. See ECF No. 1 at 6.
27
28
As explained above, defendants’ 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
2
1
and may, as here, “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy
2
Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show
3
that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the
4
action.
5
Neither does the court appear to have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint
6
seeks possession of the premises, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, past-due rent of $3,513.00,
7
forfeiture of the agreement, and damages of $41.66 per day for each day from August 1, 2017,
8
until the date of judgment. ECF No. 1 at 8. Because these damages are not likely to total more
9
than $75,000, and defendants have provided no other evidence or allegations as to the amount in
10
controversy, the court cannot exercise 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 Solano 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, defendants’ motions for in forma pauperis status are
16
moot.
17
III.
18
19
20
21
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to Solano County Superior
Court, and defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis are DENIED as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: September 11, 2017.
22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?