ILCG Holdings, LLC v. Eberwein

Filing 5

ORDER REMANDING ACTION. Signed by Judge Saundra B Armstrong on 7/20/17. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service)(dtmS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/20/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

OAKLAND DIVISION

7
8 ILCG HOLDINGS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No: C 17-03945 SBA
ORDER REMANDING ACTION

vs.

11 ROBERT EBERWEIN, FEDELINA

ROYBAL DE AGUERO, and DOES 1-5,
12

Defendants.
13
14

On July 5, 2017, Plaintiff ILCG Holdings, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful

15

detainer action against Defendants Robert Eberwein and Fedelina Roybal De Aguero

16

(collectively “Defendants”) in Mendocino County Superior Court. Compl., Dkt. 1 at pp. 6-

17

9. Plaintiff alleges that, on June 1, 2017, it recorded a Grant Deed for the real property

18

located at 42265 Little Lake Road in Mendocino, California, following a foreclosure sale.

19

On July 12, 2017, Defendants, who are acting pro se, filed a notice of removal, Dkt. 1,

20

along with an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), Dkt. 2. Defendants

21

removed the action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.

22

A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed

23

action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Inv’rs Life Ins. Co. v.

24

Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004); accord Attorneys Tr. v.

25

Videotape Comput. Prods., Inc., 93 F.3d 593, 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996) (lack of subject matter

26

jurisdiction may be raised at any time by either party or by the court sua sponte). The

27

federal removal statute permits the removal of an action which could have been brought

28

originally in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “The burden of establishing federal

1

jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed

2

against removal jurisdiction.” Prize Frize Inc. v. Matrix Inc., 167 F.3d 1261, 1265 (9th Cir.

3

1999). A district court must remand a case to state court “if at any time before the final

4

judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. §

5

1447(c); Kelton Arms Condo. Owners Ass’n v. Homestead Ins. Co., 346 F.3d 1190, 1192

6

(9th Cir.2003) (“the district court must remand if it lacks jurisdiction”) (citing Sparta

7

Surgical Corp. v. Nat’l Ass’n Sec. Dealers, Inc., 159 F.3d 1209, 1211 (9th Cir. 1998)).

8
9

A defendant may remove an action to federal court based on federal question
jurisdiction or diversity jurisdiction. Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042

10

(9th Cir. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441). As stated above, Defendants removed the instant

11

action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction.1 District courts have diversity jurisdiction over

12

all civil actions “where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,

13

exclusive of interest and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different States.” 28 U.S.C.

14

§ 1332(a). The amount in controversy is determined by the amount of damages or the

15

value of the property that is the subject matter of the action. Hunt v. Wash. State Apple

16

Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 433 (1977). The diversity statute is strictly construed, and any

17

doubts are resolved against finding jurisdiction. Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704

18

F.2d 1088, 1092 (9th Cir. 1983).

19

Here, Plaintiff commenced the state court action as a “Limited Civil Action” in

20

which the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. The damages sought in the

21

Complaint consist of the “reasonable value for the use and occupancy of the Property in the

22

sum of $80.00 per day.” Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff alleges that such sum began accruing on

23

April 5, 2017, i.e., 90 days after Defendants received service of a notice to vacate and

24

surrender possession. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. Thus, when the action was removed, the accrual period

25
1

Although not advanced by Defendants, the Court notes that federal question
jurisdiction is lacking. The Complaint alleges a single cause of action for unlawful detainer
under California law. “California federal courts have repeatedly held that unlawful detainer
27 cases brought under California’s unlawful detainer statute do not raise federal questions.”
Muhammad v. N. Richmond Senior Housing, Inc., No. C 15-00629 WHO, 2015 WL
28 1154209, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2015) (citations omitted).
26

-2-

1

was ninety-eight days. At a rate of $80.00 per day, accrued damages totaled $7,840—well

2

below the $75,000 jurisdictional minimum. Remand therefore is warranted. See Gaus v.

3

Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992) (lack of specific facts demonstrating that the

4

amount in controversy at the time of removal met the jurisdictional minimum justified

5

remand); see, e.g., Louden, LLC v. Martin, No. C 12-05972 SBA, 2012 WL 6020059, *2

6

(N.D. Cal. Dec. 3, 2012) (remanding unlawful detainer action on the ground that the

7

plaintiff limited its demand to $10,000). Accordingly,

8
9
10
11
12

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the instant action is REMANDED to Mendocino
County Superior Court. In view of the remand, Defendants’ application to proceed IFP is
DENIED as moot. The Clerk shall terminate all pending matters and close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/20/2017

______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
Senior United States District Judge

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