DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP v. Exum

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING #12 MOTION TO REMAND: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NO. CUD24673910. Signed by Judge Trina L. Thompson on 5/4/2024. (rfm, COURT USER) (Filed on 5/8/2024)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP,

7

Plaintiff,

8
v.

9

JESSY EXUM,

10

Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

14
15

Before the Court is the Application by Plaintiff DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP, for an
Order Remanding Action or Shortening Time For Hearing on Motion to Remand Action to State
Court filed May 3, 2024. (ECF 13) Plaintiff has also scheduled a Motion to Remand this Action
set for hearing on July 16, 2024. (ECF 12)

16
17
18

As noted in Defendant’s May 7, 2024, Opposition (ECF 14), Plaintiff’s Application is
procedurally and substantively defective. Plaintiff’s Application is therefore denied, without
prejudice, as to the substantive Motion to Remand.

19

The hearing scheduled for July 16, 2024 is hereby vacated.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
REMAND: SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA,
COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NO.
CUD24673910
ECF 13

12
13

Case No. 24-cv-02552-TLT

For the reasons noted below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to state court for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
I.

BACKGROUND
The action before the Court is for an unlawful detainer based on non-payment of rent.

Defendant’s removal was close to two months after Plaintiff served the Defendant with the
complaint. More importantly, the Notice for Removal was filed on April 29, 2024, four court days
prior to the scheduled trial set for Monday, May 6, 2024.
Finally, the amount of the controversy ranges from $3,506.56 to $4,223.23, absent costs

1

and attorney fees.

2

II.

3

“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

4

Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Subject matter jurisdiction ‘can never be forfeited or waived’

5

and federal courts have a continuing ‘independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter

6

jurisdiction exists.’” Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975, n.12

7

(9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). “The objection that a federal court lacks subject-

8

matter jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its

9

own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” Arbaugh

10
11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

LEGAL STANDARD

v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006).
The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Provincial

12

Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Where the

13

complaint does not specify the amount in controversy and it is unclear whether the plaintiff is

14

seeking more than the jurisdictional minimum, “the defendant bears the burden of actually proving

15

the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount” by a preponderance of the

16

evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). “The removal statute is

17

strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of

18

remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C.

19

§ 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject

20

matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).

21
22

The request for remand is untimely, the amount in controversy is below the jurisdictional
threshold, and the subject matter is solely based upon state law.

23
24

//

25
26

//

27
28
2

1

III.

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant, Jessy Exum and Does 1-5,

2
inclusive, have failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction and remands the case to state court
3
forthwith.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
Dated: May 4, 2024
6
7
8

TRINA L. THOMPSON
United States District Judge

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3