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)

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