Nguyen v. Cook et al

Filing 4

ORDER: (1) Remanding Action to State Court and (2) Denying Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis because it is moot. Signed by Judge Jeffrey T. Miller on 3/2/2015(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rlu) sent certified copy to state court on 3/2/2015 (rlu).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LIENA D. NGUYEN and/or Its Assigners and/or Assignees in Interest, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 vs. CASE NO. 15-cv-0445 (JM) JLB ORDER (1) REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT AND (2) DENYING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS DAVIS COOK, RHONDA COOK, and DOES 1 through 10, 15 Defendants. 16 17 For the reasons set forth below, the court remands this action to state court 18 and denies Defendant Rhonda Cook’s motion for leave to proceed in forma 19 pauperis. 20 On November 18, 2014, Plaintiff Nguyen commenced this action in San 21 Diego Superior Court to remove Defendants from property Nguyen purchased 22 from Chase Bank in September 2014. (Doc. No. 1, Exh. A.) The sole claim is for 23 unlawful detainer, and the complaint states that the amount in controversy does not 24 exceed $10,000. (Id. at 1.) 25 On February 27, 2015, Defendant Rhonda Cook filed a pro se notice of 26 removal to this court, (Doc. No. 1), and an application to proceed in forma pauperis, 27 (Doc. No. 2). She contends that this court has subject-matter jurisdiction because 28 her answer asserts that the notice to vacate the premises failed to comply with the -1- 15cv0445 1 Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act, 12 U.S.C. § 5220. (Doc. No. 1 ¶ 10.) 2 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and there is a presumption 3 that federal courts lack jurisdiction. See Kikkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 4 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party seeking to invoke federal jurisdiction has 5 the burden of establishing the basis for federal jurisdiction. See id. Federal district 6 courts have original jurisdiction “of all civil actions arising under the . . . laws . . . 7 of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and “of all civil actions where the matter 8 in controversy exceeds . . . $75,000 and is between . . . citizens of different States,” 9 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 10 A defendant may remove an action to federal court only if the plaintiff could 11 have initially filed the complaint in federal court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). If 12 removal was improper and the federal court lacks jurisdiction, the federal court must 13 remand the case to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The court is obligated to 14 confirm its jurisdiction sua sponte, even if jurisdictional defects are not raised by 15 the parties. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 16 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). 17 “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 18 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 19 when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 20 complaint.” Caterpiller Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This means 21 that “a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” 22 Id. at 393. 23 In this case, the complaint presents only a state-law claim for unlawful 24 detainer and it limits the amount in controversy to $10,000. Consequently, the 25 complaint presents no basis for federal jurisdiction under either § 1331 or § 1332. 26 Defendant Cook’s defense under federal law does not change that assessment. 27 / / / 28 / / / -2- 15cv0445 1 Accordingly, the court REMANDS this action to San Diego Superior Court 2 and denies Defendant Cook’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 3 No. 2) because it is moot. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 DATED: March 2, 2015 6 7 Hon. Jeffrey T. Miller United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -3- 15cv0445

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?