Tran v. Villafuentes et al

Filing 4

ORDER Remanding Case. Court remands this action to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Court terminates Dfts' motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. Signed by Judge Cynthia Bashant on 7/2/2015. (cc: San Diego Superior Court) (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (jah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

12

HUNG TRAN,

13

Case No. 15-cv-1450-BAS(BGS)
Plaintiff,

14
15
16

v.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION
TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF
SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION

REBECA VILLAFUENTES, et al.,

17

Defendants.

18
19
20

On May 27, 2015, Plaintiff Hung Tran commenced this unlawful-detainer action

21

in the San Diego Superior Court against Defendant Yolanda Astorga. Defendant

22

Rebeca Villafuentes was shortly thereafter added to the lawsuit. This action arises

23

from Defendants’ alleged failure to pay rent as required by a written agreement. On

24

July 1, 2015, Defendants removed this action to federal court. The removal is based

25

on jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332.
For the following reasons, the Court finds that Defendants’ Notice of Removal

26
27

is deficient and REMANDS this action to the San Diego Superior Court.

28

//
-1-

15cv1450

1

I.

LEGAL STANDARD

2

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

3

Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “They possess only that power authorized

4

by Constitution or a statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree.” Id.

5

(internal citations omitted). “It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

6

jurisdiction and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

7

jurisdiction.” Id. (internal citations omitted); see also Abrego Abrego v. The Dow

8

Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006).

9

Consistent with the limited jurisdiction of federal courts, the removal statute is

10

strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566

11

(9th Cir. 1992); see also Sygenta Crop Prot. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002);

12

O’Halloran v. Univ. of Wash., 856 F.2d 1375, 1380 (9th Cir. 1988). “The strong

13

presumption against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the

14

burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566; see also

15

Nishimoto v. Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990);

16

O’Halloran, 856 F.2d at 1380. “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any

17

doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566.

18

Although there has not been a request to remand, it is well-established that “a

19

district court’s duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the

20

parties’ arguments.” See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360

21

F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004). Courts may consider the issue sua sponte. Demery v.

22

Kupperman, 735 F.2d 1139, 1149 n.8 (9th Cir. 1984). Indeed, the Supreme Court has

23

emphasized that “district courts have an ‘independent obligation to address subject-

24

matter jurisdiction sua sponte.’” Grupo Dataflux v. Atlas Global Grp., L.P., 541 U.S.

25

567, 593 (2004) (quoting United States v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 300 F. Supp. 2d 964, 972

26

(E.D. Cal. 2004)).

27

//

28

//
-2-

15cv1450

1

II.

ANALYSIS

2

A.

Diversity

3

In attempting to invoke this Court’s diversity jurisdiction, the defendant must

4

prove that there is complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and that the

5

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. To determine whether the

6

amount in controversy has been met on removal, “[t]he district court may consider

7

whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in

8

controversy.” Singer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 377 (9th Cir.

9

1997). In cases in which the plaintiff’s state-court complaint does not specify an exact

10

damage figure, the defendant “must provide evidence that it is ‘more likely than not’

11

that the amount in controversy” satisfies the federal diversity jurisdictional amount

12

requirement. Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996).

13

Defendant fails to satisfy that requirement. See 42 U.S.C. § 1332.

14

Defendants assert that “Plaintiff does not quantify the amount of damages they

15

[sic] seek to recover in this case[,]” and “[f]rom the face of the Complaint, however,

16

it is apparent that the amount in controversy more likely than not exceeds $75,000.00,

17

exclusive of interest and costs.” (Removal Notice ¶ 7.) That is wholly inaccurate.

18

Plaintiff unequivocally indicates that the amount in controversy does not exceed

19

$10,000. (Compl. 1 (under “Jurisdiction”).) That valuation is consistent with

20

allegations in the complaint asserting that the monthly rent is $1,980, to be

21

“customarily paid on [the] 15th,” and Defendants failed to pay rent beginning May 21,

22

2015. (Compl. ¶¶ 6(d), 7(b).) Plaintiff’s request for relief is quite clear. He seeks,

23

among other non-monetary relief, costs, reasonable attorney fees, $1,980 in past-due

24

rent, and $66 for each day Defendants remain in possession of the property beginning

25

June 16, 2015 through entry of judgment. (Compl. ¶¶ 11, 17.)

26

//

27

//

28

//
-3-

15cv1450

1

As of this date, the damages sought, excluding attorney fees and costs, amount

2

to $3,102.1 That is well below the amount-in-controversy threshold required to

3

establish federal diversity jurisdiction. See 42 U.S.C. § 1332.

4
5

B.

Federal Question

6

In order to invoke this Court’s federal-question jurisdiction, the defendant must

7

demonstrate that the civil action “aris[es] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the

8

United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “It is settled that the answer to this jurisdictional

9

question must be determined solely from the face of the complaint unaided by the

10

answer, petition for removal or other papers.” Farmco Stores, Inc. v. Newmark, 315

11

F. Supp. 396, 397 (E.D. Cal. 1970) (citing Gully v. F. Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109, 113

12

(1936); Stauffer v. Exley, 184 F.2d 962, 967 (9th Cir. 1950)).

13

Though most of the removal notice focuses on the requirements for diversity

14

jurisdiction, Defendants also invoke federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The only

15

elaboration on federal question is the following paragraph: “This Court has original

16

jurisdiction over the matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Further, this matter is one

17

that may be removed to this Court . . . because it is a civil action based on the Federal

18

Debt Collection Practices Act.” (Removal Notice ¶ 4.) That understanding of the

19

complaint is also incorrect. The federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C.

20

§ 1692, is not invoked anywhere in the complaint. In fact, there is no identifiable

21

federal statute or claim mentioned, even in passing, anywhere in the complaint.
Therefore, the Court cannot conclude that this action arises under the

22
23

Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

24

//

25

//

26

//

27
1

28

Seventeen days have lapsed from June 16, 2015 to this date. The damages resulting from
daily rate is calculated as follows: $66 per day x 17 days = $1,122. Adding that value to the past-due
rent sought, $1,980, produces the sum total of $3,102.
-4-

15cv1450

1

III.

CONCLUSION & ORDER

2

Because Plaintiff does not assert a claim that presents a federal question as

3

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because he fails to allege facts necessary to establish

4

diversity jurisdiction as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court REMANDS this

5

action to the San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28

6

U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court

7

lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). Additionally, the Court

8

TERMINATES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF

9

No. 3.)

10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
12

DATED: July 2, 2015

13

Hon. Cynthia Bashant
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-5-

15cv1450