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)
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?