Jay Sadrieh TTEE Jay Jalal Sadrieth & Sadrieth Revocable Trust v. Pirahanci-Nazemi et al

Filing 4

ORDER Remanding Case. The Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to San Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Removing Defendant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 4/25/2017.Certified copy of order sent to Superior Court via U.S. mail. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(acc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

Case No.: 17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG

JAY SADRIEH TTEE JAY JALAL
SADRIETH & SADRIETH
REVOCABLE TRUST,

13

(1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION (Doc. No. 1); AND

Plaintiff,

14

v.

15

FARRAH PIRAHANCI-NAZEMI,

16

(2) DENYING MOTION TO
PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
AS MOOT (Doc. No. 2)

Defendant.

17
18
19

On April 17, 2017, Defendant Farrah Pirahanci-Nazemi (“Removing Defendant”),

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

acting pro se, filed a notice of removal of an unlawful detainer action initiated in San Diego
Superior Court by Plaintiff Jay Sadrieh TTEE Jay Jalal Sadrieth & Sadrieth Revocable
Trust (“Plaintiff”), (Doc. No. 1), and an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc.
No. 2.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and DENIES AS MOOT Removing Defendant’s
application to proceed in forma pauperis.
///
///
1
17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG

1

LEGAL STANDARD

2

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction

3

only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian

4

Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action to federal

5

court only if the district court would have original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 U.S.C.

6

§ 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

7

980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). A defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish

8

that removal is proper and any doubt is resolved against removability. Luther v.

9

Countrywide Home Loans Servicing LP, 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008).

10

Moreover, “[f]ederal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their

11

own jurisdiction[.]” FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990).

12

Accordingly, “[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks

13

subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see also Fed.

14

R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter

15

jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”).

16

DISCUSSION

17

Removing Defendant alleges that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this

18

matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.)1 Federal question jurisdiction exists

19

over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.”

20

28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Jurisdiction in federal question

21

cases is “governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal

22

[question] jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the

23

plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392–

24

93 (1987). Diversity jurisdiction exists where there is complete diversity among opposing

25

parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).

26
27

1

28

Pinpoint cites refer to the CM/ECF page numbers and not the automatically generated page numbers
on the original document.
2
17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG

1

The Complaint attached as Exhibit A to the notice of removal affirmatively shows

2

that the Complaint alleges only a single claim for unlawful detainer, which is a California

3

state law cause of action. (See Generally Doc. No. 1-2.) Thus, the Court finds that

4

Plaintiff’s Complaint does not “necessarily raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed

5

and substantial,” which this Court “may entertain without disturbing any congressionally

6

approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities.” See Grable & Sons Metal

7

Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 314 (2005); see also Aurora Loan

8

Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485- MCE-KJN-PS, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D.

9

Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (“[P]laintiff filed its Complaint in Superior Court asserting a single

10

claim for unlawful detainer premised solely on California law. Because a claim for

11

unlawful detainer does not by itself present a federal question or necessarily turn on the

12

construction of federal law, no basis for federal question jurisdiction appears on the face

13

of the Complaint.”); Wells Fargo Bank v. Lapeen, No. C 11-01932 LB, 2011 WL 2194117,

14

at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (“An unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise

15

under federal law but is purely a creature of California law.”) (citing Wescom Credit Union

16

v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22,

17

2010)). Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Complaint does not present a federal

18

question.

19

Moreover, Removing Defendant does not claim that removal is appropriate based

20

on diversity jurisdiction. The Court notes however that both parties are residents of San

21

Diego, California. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 3.) Additionally, the Complaint states on its face that

22

the demand for damages includes rent in the amount of $5200.00 beginning on March 1,

23

2017, and attorney fees. (Id. at 5.) As of the date of this Order, that only amounts to less

24

than $10,000.00, which is far less than the $75,000 needed to qualify for diversity

25

jurisdiction. Consequently, as the Complaint does not present a federal question, and

26

diversity jurisdiction is not present, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

27

///

28

///
3
17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG

1

CONCLUSION

2

For the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to San

3

Diego Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, Removing

4

Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED AS MOOT.

5
6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7

Dated: April 25, 2017

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
17-CV-00769 AJB-WVG