2015-3 IH2 Borrower LP v. Watson

Filing 3

ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 11/7/2017 REMANDING case to Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendant's 2 Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is DENIED as moot. The Clerk is directed to CLOSE this case and VACATE all dates. The Clerk is ORDERED not to open another case removing unlawful detainer action No. 17UD04204. 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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

2015-3 IOH2 BORROWER, L.P.,

12
13
14

No. 2:17-cv-02294-MCE-EFB

Plaintiff,
ORDER

v.
LICHELLE WALTON,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On November 1, 2017, Defendant LICHELLE WALTON, proceeding pro se, filed

18

a Notice of Removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Sacramento County

19

Superior Court.1 ECF No. 1. This Court has an independent duty to ascertain its

20

jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See

21

28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party

22

seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal

23

jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)

24

(internal citation omitted). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as

25

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

26

(9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, Defendant has failed to meet that burden.

27
1

28

Despite Defendant's pro se status, the undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral to
a Magistrate Judge. See L.R. 302(c)(21).

1

1

The Notice of Removal is premised on the argument that this Court has federal

2

jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question, and § 1332, diversity of

3

citizenship. ECF No. 1 at 1. However, a review of the Complaint reveals that Plaintiff

4

does not allege any federal claims; instead, Plaintiff alleges only unlawful detainer under

5

state law. ECF No. 1 at Ex. A.

6

“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-

7

pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a

8

federal question is presented on the fact of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

9

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case where the

10

complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that

11

[2] the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question

12

of federal law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage

13

Leasehold & Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax

14

Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)).

15

Here, Plaintiff's one cause of action is for unlawful detainer under state law. At

16

most, Defendant argues that they have a defense and/or a counterclaim under federal

17

law. “A case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense . . .

18

even if the defense is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint, and even if both parties

19

admit that the defense is the only question truly at issue in the case.” ARCO Envtl.

20

Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t. of Health & Envtl. Quality of the State of Montana, 213 F.3d

21

1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted); see also Wells Fargo

22

Bank, NA v. Hunt, No. C-10-04965 JCS, 2011 WL 445801 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2011)

23

(“Defendants' assertion of affirmative defenses and/or counterclaims based on alleged

24

violations of federal law do not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. . . . the well-

25

pleaded complaint rule does not allow courts to consider affirmative defenses or

26

counterclaims in determining whether federal question jurisdiction exists.). Therefore,

27

this Court lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

28

///
2

1

Additionally, even assuming—without deciding—that the parties to this action are

2

diverse, Plaintiff’s Complaint reveals no basis for Defendant’s claim that the amount in

3

controversy requirement is met here, where Plaintiff is requesting at most the sum of:

4

past-due rent in the amount of $1,425; plus $46.84 per day from August 1, 2017, through

5

entry of judgment; plus attorney’s fees. See Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Cantillano,

6

No. CV 12-01641 GAF (CMx), 2012 WL 1193613, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (“The

7

appropriate dollar amount in determining the amount of controversy in unlawful detainer

8

actions is the rental value of the property, not the value of the property as a whole.”).

9

Therefore, this Court also lacks jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

10

Accordingly:

11

1.

The action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court.

12

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a certified copy of the order on the

13

Clerk of the Sacramento County Superior Court, and reference the state

14

case number (No. 17UD04204) in the proof of service.

15

3.

16

Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 2) is DENIED
as moot.

17

4.

The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and vacate all dates.

18

5.

The Clerk of the Court is ordered not to open another case removing the

19
20
21

following unlawful detainer action: No. 17UD04204.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2017

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3