BP Assets Group, LLC et al v. Nadonza

Filing 4

REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT WITH RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND. Signed by Judge Nathanael M. Cousins on 06/20/2012. (nclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/20/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 9 10 BP ASSETS GROUP, LLC and TSENG INVESTMENT, LLC, 11 Plaintiffs, 12 v. Case No. 12-cv-3106 NC REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT WITH RECOMMENDATION TO REMAND CASE 13 14 EVANGELINA NADONZA, WILFREDO NADONZA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiffs BP Asset Group, LLC and Tseng Investment, LLC initiated this unlawful 18 19 detainer action in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo. Defendants 20 Evangelina Nadonza and Wilfredo Nadonza, proceeding pro se, removed this action to 21 federal court on June 15, 2012. Not. Removal, Dkt. No. 1. As the parties have not 22 consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), this Court 23 does not have authority to make a dispositive ruling in this case. Accordingly, the Court 24 orders that this case be REASSIGNED to a District Court Judge. The Court 25 RECOMMENDS that the action be REMANDED to state court as defendants’ notice of 26 removal fails to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction. 27 // 28 Case No. 12-cv-3106 NC REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT WITH REC. TO REMAND A defendant may remove a state court action to federal court if the federal court 1 2 would have original subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, federal question 3 jurisdiction, or 28 U.S.C. § 1332, diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. For this court to have federal question jurisdiction, plaintiffs’ case must arise under 4 5 federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “A case ‘arises under’ federal law within the meaning of 6 § 1331 if ‘a well-pleaded complaint establishes either that federal law creates the cause of 7 action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a 8 substantial question of federal law.’” Proctor v. Vishay Intertechnology Inc., 584 F.3d 9 1208, 1219 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). Under the “well-pleaded complaint” rule, 10 the “federal question on which jurisdiction is premised cannot be supplied via a defense; 11 rather, the federal question must ‘be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by 12 the answer.’” Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 13 1086 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 415 U.S. 125, 127-28 14 (1974)). Where no federal question exists, a court may permit removal under 28 U.S.C. 15 16 § 1332 where “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000 . . . and is 17 between . . . citizens of different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In addition, removal based 18 on diversity jurisdiction if appropriate only if “none of the . . . defendants is a citizen of 19 the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). A federal district court must remand a removed case to state court “if at any time 20 21 before the final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 22 jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 23 1992). 24 The Court first considers whether the complaint raises a federal question. Here, 25 the operative complaint alleges a single unlawful detainer claim arising under California 26 Civil Code § 1161a. See Not. Removal, Ex. A (Complaint). Though defendants allege 27 federal law defenses in both their answer and demurrer to the complaint, these defenses 28 fail to create a federal question. See Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque, 582 F.3d at Case No. 12-cv-3106 NC REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT WITH REC. TO REMAND 2 1 1086-87. 2 Second, this action cannot be removed based on diversity jurisdiction under 28 3 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires complete diversity in citizenship and that the amount in 4 controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). In unlawful detainer actions, “the 5 right to possession alone [is] involved–not title to the property.” Litton Loan Servicing, 6 L.P. v. Villegas, No. 10-cv-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) 7 (citations omitted). Damages are therefore limited to the rental value of the property 8 during the period of unlawful possession. Id. Plaintiffs have asserted that the rental value 9 of the property during the period of unlawful possession (less than a week at the time the 10 complaint was filed) is less than $10,000. See Not. Removal, Ex. A. Defendants have 11 not disputed this amount. The Court finds defendants have failed to meet the amount in 12 controversy requirement. 13 In addition, an action may be removed on diversity of citizenship grounds only 14 where “none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen 15 of the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). Here, it is 16 undisputed that defendants are both citizens of the state of California. Not. Removal, Ex. 17 A. Because the amount in controversy does not exceed $75,000 and defendants are 18 citizens of the state in which the action is brought, diversity jurisdiction cannot be 19 established. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a), 1441(b)(2). 20 As the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, the Court 21 recommends that the action be REMANDED to state court. The parties may object to 22 this recommendation within fourteen days of the filing date of this order. FED. R. CIV. P. 23 72(a); Civil L.R. 72-2. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 26 DATED: June 20, 2012 ____________________________ NATHANAEL M. COUSINS United States Magistrate Judge 27 28 Case No. 12-cv-3106 NC REFERRAL FOR REASSIGNMENT WITH REC. TO REMAND 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?