Mission Capital Properties, Inc. v. Dominguez et al

Filing 4

ORDER Sua Sponte Remanding Action. The Court sua sponte REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the San Diego Superior Court. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 5/16/2017.Certified copy of this 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 15 16 ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (Doc. No. 1) Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No.: 17cv993-AJB- JLB MISSION CAPITAL PROPERTIES, INC., v. SEAN DOMINGUEZ, PAIGE DOMINGUEZ, AND DOES 1-10, Inclusive, Defendants. 17 18 19 On May 15, 2017, Defendants Sean and Paige Dominguez (collectively referred to 20 as “Defendants”) removed an unlawful detainer action filed in San Diego Superior Court 21 to this Court. (Doc. No. 1.) The removal was based on federal question jurisdiction 22 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. (Id. ¶ 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the 23 Court sua sponte REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. DISCUSSION 24 25 A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction 26 After a review of Plaintiff Mission Capital Properties, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint 27 and Defendants’ notice of removal, the Court notes that the only cause of action asserted 28 in the present matter is for unlawful detainer. (See generally Doc. No. 1-2.) Accordingly, 1 17cv993-AJB- JLB 1 the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 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 from state 5 court to federal court only if the district court could have original jurisdiction over the 6 matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “Removal statutes are strictly construed against removal.” 7 Luther v. Countrywide Home Loan Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). 8 Moreover, there is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction and the party 9 seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. 10 Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Remand is necessary if it appears from the 11 face of the complaint that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed 12 action. See id. (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of 13 removal in the first instance.”) (citation omitted). 14 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff is bringing a single cause of action against Defendants 15 for unlawful detainer. (See generally Doc. No. 1-2.) Thus, because this is a purely state law 16 cause of action, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction and must remand the 17 matter. See Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660 PSG, 2009 WL 3157411, 18 at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful 19 detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the 20 complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”); see also 21 Southland Homes Real Estate & Inv., LLC v. Lam, No. SACV 11-32-JST (RNBx), 2011 22 WL 781243, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011). 23 In addition, the face of the Complaint clearly shows that this Court does not possess 24 diversity jurisdiction over the matter. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction 25 there must be “complete diversity” between the parties and the amount in controversy 26 requirement of $75,000 must be met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the Complaint clearly 27 states that Plaintiff seeks $70.00 per day in damages, beginning on March 7, 2017, for each 28 day Defendants remain in possession of the subject premises. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 8.) As of 2 17cv993-AJB- JLB 1 the date of this Order that amounts to $4900.00, which is far less than the $75,000.00 2 needed for diversity jurisdiction. Thus, the Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction over the 3 matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1); see also Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 4 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[W]hen a state-court complaint affirmatively alleges that the 5 amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the ‘party seeking removal 6 must prove with legal certainty that [the] jurisdictional amount is met.’”) (citation omitted.) 7 CONCLUSION 8 Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the 9 action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the San Diego Superior Court. 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: May 16, 2017 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 17cv993-AJB- JLB

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?