Beltran v. Altamirano et al

Filing 7

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/9/2018 REMANDING CASE to Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendants' 2 , 3 , 4 motions to proceed IFP are DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiffs 6 motion to remand which is improperly noticed for hearing before Magistrate Judge Claire on 8/29/2018, is therefore DENIED as MOOT. 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

JOSE BELTRAN,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

No. 2:18-cv-1756-KJM-AC PS
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

KRYSTAL ALTAMIRANO, JONATHAN
ALTAMIRANO, MARIA
ALTAMIRANO, ARELENE CISNEROS,
CHRISTOPHER RODRIGUEZ, ANDREA
RODRIGUEZ, RUBEN RODRIGUEZ,
JOHN RODRIGUEZ, ALEX MEDOZA,
IRENE MENDOZA, DESTINY
MENDOZA, and DOES 1 through 10,
inclusive,

19

Defendants.

20
21
22

On June 19, 2018, defendants, proceeding pro se, jointly removed this unlawful

23

detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Three

24

defendants, Jonathan Altamirano, Maria Altamirano and Irene Mendoza, also filed motions to

25

proceed in forma pauperis. ECF Nos. 2-4. As explained below, the court REMANDS the case to

26

the Sacramento County Superior Court and DENIES as moot defendants’ motions to proceed in

27

forma pauperis.

28
1

1
2

I.

SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A.

Legal Standard

3

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.

5

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

6

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

7

U.S.C. § 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.” Id. § 1331. Under

10

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

11

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

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

1

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” ECF No. 1 at 3. The complaint

2

plaintiff filed in state court, however, asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, which is strictly a

3

matter of state law. See id. at 6-9.

4

Defendants’ answer, counterclaim or demurrer cannot serve as the basis for federal

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

is based upon federal law, 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

seeks repossession of the premises, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, past-due rent of

11

$9,572.56, forfeiture of the rental agreement, and damages of $27.66 per day for each day from

12

April 17, 2018, until the date of judgment. ECF No. 1 at 9. Because these damages are unlikely

13

to exceed $75,000, and defendants provide no other evidence or allegations as to the amount in

14

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

15

II.

16

REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
For these reasons, the court has determined sua sponte that it appears to lack

17

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

18

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

19

should be remanded to state court.”). As a result, defendants’ motions for in forma pauperis

20

status are moot.

21

III.

22

CONCLUSION
This action is REMANDED to Sacramento County Superior Court and

23

defendants’ motions to proceed in forma pauperis status are DENIED as MOOT. Plaintiff’s

24

pending motion to remand, ECF No. 6, which is improperly noticed for hearing before Magistrate

25

Judge Claire on August 29, 2018, is therefore DENIED as MOOT.

26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27

This resolves ECF Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 6.

28

DATED: August 9, 2018.
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE