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)

Download PDF
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

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?