Cannon v. Herrera et al

Filing 3

ORDER Remanding Case to the State Court. Signed by Judge Larry Alan Burns on 11/21/16.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(cc: Superior Court of CA, County of San Diego, North County)(kas)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTOINE CANNON,

CASE NO. 16cv2797-LAB (AGS)

12

Plaintiff,
vs.
LUIS M. HERRERA, OSCAR
ALTAMIRANO, and CELIA DUENAS,

ORDER OF REMAND

13
14
15

Defendants.

16

Antoine Cannon sued the Defendants for unlawful retainer in California state court four

17

months ago. Defendants removed the action to this Court last week. The Court remands the

18

case to state court because Defendants failed to show federal jurisdiction exits.

19

First, Cannon’s unlawful retainer action doesn’t arise under the Constitution or laws

20

of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendants argue that the case implicates a federal

21

question because the California Civil Code violates the Constitution. (Dkt. 1 ¶ 5.) But that

22

argument violates the well-pleaded complaint rule. See Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211

23

U.S. 149 (1908). The Court doesn’t have federal question jurisdiction.

24

Second, the Defendants haven’t provided sufficient evidence that the case involves

25

a dispute for more than $75,000 between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “In

26

cases removed from state court, the removing defendant has ‘always’ borne the burden of

27

establishing federal jurisdiction, including any applicable amount in controversy requirement.”

28

Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 682–83 (9th Cir. 2006). Here, Cannon
-1-

16cv2797

1

filed a limited civil suit for less than $10,000. Defendants write: “Plaintiffs allege standing in

2

the state court lawsuit with an amount of controversy in excess of $75,000.00.” (Dkt. 1 ¶ 3.)

3

Cannon doesn’t make that claim anywhere in his complaint.

4

Moreover, Defendants’ Notice of Removal states that “Defendants are residents of

5

California and citizens of Mexico,” but later alleges Defendant Herrera is a resident of

6

Mexico.” (Dkt.1 ¶¶ 6, 13.) That’s not a sufficient showing to satisfy complete diversity: the

7

Notice obfuscates Herrera’s citizenship and doesn’t explain if the Defendants are dual

8

citizens or have permanent residence in the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(2). The

9

Court doesn’t have diversity jurisdiction.

10

The Court orders the case remanded to state court.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

11/21/2016
DATED: ____________________

13

___________________________________

14

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS
United States District Judge

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-

16cv2797