Edrington v. Barr et al
Filing
8
ORDER REMANDING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley on 2/2/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service)(ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2017)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
STEVEN EDRINGTON,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No.16-cv-07395-JSC
ORDER REMANDING CASE
v.
JAMES K. BARR, et al.,
Defendants.
12
13
Plaintiff brought this state law unlawful detainer action against Defendants James K. Barr
14
and Judy A. Barr in the Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda. The Barr
15
Defendants, representing themselves, removed this action from Alameda County Superior Court.
16
(Dkt. No.1.) Given the lack of subject matter jurisdiction appearing on the face of the complaint,
17
the Court ordered the Barr Defendants to show cause (“OSC”) as to why this case should not be
18
remanded. (Dkt. No. 3.) Although ordered to respond to the OSC by January 26, 2017, the Barr
19
Defendants have failed to do so.
20
All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction (see Dkt. Nos. 5,6, 7), pursuant
21
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (See Dkt. Nos. 5, 6, 7.) For the reasons explained below, the Court
22
REMANDS this case to Alameda County Superior Court.
23
DISCUSSION
24
A defendant may remove an action from state court to federal court so long as the federal
25
court has original jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28
26
U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1) requires complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy in
27
excess of $75,000. Federal subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 requires a civil
28
action to arise under the constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. A claim “arises under”
1
federal law only if a “well-pleaded complaint” alleges a cause of action based on federal law—“an
2
actual or anticipated defense” does not confer federal jurisdiction. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556
3
U.S. 49, 60 (2009). The defendant seeking removal “bears the burden of establishing that removal
4
is proper” and the “removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Provincial
5
Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Further, when a
6
case is removed to federal court, the court has an independent obligation to satisfy itself that it has
7
federal subject matter jurisdiction. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir.
8
2004). A case removed to federal court must be remanded back to state court “if at any time
9
before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C.
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
§ 1447(c).
Here, Defendants cite both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as bases
12
for removal. As to federal question jurisdiction, the removed complaint makes only a state-law
13
claim for unlawful detainer. It is unclear from the Notice of Removal what federal laws are or
14
may be implicated. Further, as noted above, it is the complaint that must allege a cause of action
15
based on federal law to confer federal jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s complaint does not do so. Any
16
actual or anticipated defenses that Defendants plan to raise are not sufficient to establish federal
17
jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60.
18
Nor does diversity jurisdiction exist in this case. Plaintiff’s unlawful detainer action was
19
filed in superior court as a “limited” civil case amounting to less than $10,000 in controversy.
20
(See Dkt. No. 1 at 17, 19.) As such, the amount in controversy does not meet the jurisdictional
21
threshold of $75,000.00 for diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b) & 1332(a). In addition,
22
only non-resident defendants can effect removal based on diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C.
23
§ 1441(b); Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for Northern Dist. (Altec Indus., Inc.), 393 F.3d 86, 87 (9th
24
Cir. 2004). Once any “local defendant (a citizen of the forum state) has been served, the action
25
cannot be removed by that defendant, or by any other defendant.” Republic W. Ins. Co. v. Int’l
26
Ins. Co., 765 F. Supp. 628, 629 (N.D. Cal. 1991) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the
27
complaint alleges that Defendants reside at the subject property located in Alameda, California,
28
and are therefore citizens of California. (Dkt. No. 1 at 17.) Indeed, in their notice of removal
2
1
Defendants allege that they are California citizens. (Id. at 8.) As Defendants are “local,”
2
removal is improper on this basis as well.
3
4
Given Defendants’ failure to respond to the OSC regarding remand and the clear lack of
subject matter jurisdiction on the face of the complaint, remand is required.
CONCLUSION
5
6
7
8
9
Based on the foregoing, the Court REMANDS this case to Superior Court of California
for the County of Alameda.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 2, 2017
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?