Skyway Investments, LLC v. Reifer et al

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 10/24/2017 REMANDING CASE to Yolo County Superior Court. Certified copy of remand order sent to other court. 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

SKYWAY INVESTMENTS.COM, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-02181-KJM-CKD

v.

ORDER

JOSEPH D. REIFER, DEBBIE REIFER,
et al.,

16

Defendants.

17
On October 19, 2017, defendants Joseph D. Reifer and Debbie Reifer, proceeding

18
19

pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from Yolo County Superior Court. ECF No. 1.

20

As explained below, the court REMANDS the case to the Yolo County Superior Court.

21

I.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A.

22

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

23
24

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

25

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

26

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

27

§ 1332.

28

/////
1

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

U.S. 49, 60 (2009).

8
9

Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the
amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 U.S.C.

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

B.

20

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

21

under § 1331 because “Plaintiff’s claim is based upon a notice which expressly references and

22

incorporates the ‘Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009,’ 12 U.S.C. § 5201 . . . [and]

23

Defendant asserts and alleges that Plaintiff did not allow the ninety day period [required under

24

§ 5201] to lapse before filing their claim.” ECF No. 1 at 2-3. The complaint plaintiff filed in state

25

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

26

9.

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 that

3

it 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

seeks restitution of the property at issue, damages of $48.66 per day for each day from July 31,

6

2017 until the date of judgment or possession, and costs. ECF No. 1 at 11. Because these damages

7

are not likely to total more than $75,000, and defendants have provided no other evidence or

8

allegations as to the amount in controversy, the court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over

9

the action.

10
11
12
13
14

II.

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

Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 24, 2017.

15
16

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3