Pacific Landstar Investment LLC v. Jones

Filing 9

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granting 7 Motion to Remand (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service) (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/10/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12

PACIFIC LANDSTAR INVESTMENTS,
LLC,
Plaintiff,

13

Case No. 13-5055 JSC
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO REMAND

v.

14
15
16

LOURIA JONES,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendant in the Superior

19
20

Court of California for the County of Alameda seeking to evict Defendant from real property located

21

in Oakland. Defendant Louria Jones, representing herself, subsequently purported to remove the

22

action to this Court on the basis of diversity jurisdiction. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s

23

motion to remand this action back to state court. Because the Court finds the motion suitable for

24

disposition without oral argument pursuant to Local Rule 7–1(b), the Court VACATES the hearing

25

set for December 12, 2013. For the reasons stated below, the Court GRANTS the motion. 1

26
27
28
1

The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

1

DISCUSSION

2

Defendant, as the party seeking removal to this federal court, bears the burden of establishing

3

that subject matter jurisdiction exists, and courts strictly construe the removal statute against removal

4

jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). Jurisdiction founded on

5

diversity “requires that the parties be in complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceed

6

$75,000.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

7

Complete diversity means that “each of the plaintiffs must be a citizen of a different state than each

8

of the defendants.” Allstate Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir. 2004).

9

Defendant has not established that the parties are diverse. Although the removed complaint

Northern District of California

is silent as to Plaintiff’s citizenship, Defendant’s Notice of Removal states that Plaintiff is “a

11
United States District Court

10

Corporation doing business in California,” and that Plaintiff is a resident of California. (Dkt. No. 1

12

¶¶ 5-6.) Rather than establish that the parties are diverse, Defendant’s Notice demonstrates that they

13

are citizens of the same state. Moreover, even if diversity existed, removal would still be improper

14

because Defendant, an apparent California resident, is precluded from removing an action where she

15

is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2).

16

While Defendant does not base removal on federal question jurisdiction, such an assertion

17

would likewise fail. “Federal question jurisdiction exists only when a federal question exists on the

18

face of a well-pleaded complaint.” ING Bank, FSB v. Pineda, 2012 WL 2077311, at *1 (N.D. Cal.

19

June 8, 2012). The removed complaint makes only a state law claim for unlawful detainer. (Dkt.

20

No. 1, p. 6.) Therefore, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction. ING Bank, FSB, 2012

21

WL 2077311, at *1.
CONCLUSION

22
23
24
25

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and REMANDS this action to
Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda.
The Clerk is directed to close the case.

26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.

28

2

1

Dated: December 10, 2013

_________________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Northern District of California

United States District Court

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3