Irongate Investors, LLC v. King

Filing 4

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 12/18/2017 REMANDING CASE to Sacramento County Superior Court. Copy of remand order sent to other court. DENYING as MOOT 3 Motion to Proceed IFP CASE CLOSED. (Washington, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IRONGATE INVESTORS, LLC,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

No. 2:17-cv-2583-KJM-KJN PS

v.

ORDER

LAUREN KING, and DOES 1 through 10
inclusive,
Defendants.

16
17

On December 11, 2017, pro se defendant Lauren King removed this unlawful

18
19

detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. King also filed a motion to

20

proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 3. As explained below, the court REMANDS the case to

21

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

22

forma pauperis.

23

I.

LEGAL STANDARD: SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original

24
25

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

26

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

27

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

28

§ 1332.
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.” Id. § 1331. Under

3

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

4

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

II.

20

DISCUSSION
Defendant’s Notice of Removal asserts the court has federal question jurisdiction

21

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

22

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

23

plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, which is a matter of state

24

law. See id. at 5.

25

As explained above, defendant’s answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis

26

for federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint

27

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

28
2

1

Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show it

2

is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action.

3

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

4

seeks possession of the premises, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, past-due rent of $1,450.00,

5

forfeiture of the agreement, and damages of $47.33 per day for each day from November 1, 2017

6

until the date of judgment. ECF No. 1 at 8. Because these damages are not likely to total more

7

than $75,000, and defendant has provided no other evidence or allegations as to the amount in

8

controversy, the court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over the action.

9

III.

10

CONCLUSION
The court has found no proper basis to exercise subject matter jurisdiction over

11

this case. The case is therefore REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court. Cf.

12

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

13

remanded to state court.”). Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is

14

DENIED as moot.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: December 18, 2017.

17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3