Mission Capital Properties, Inc. v. Dominguez et al
Filing
5
ORDER Sua Sponte Remanding Action to State Court for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Anthony J. Battaglia on 10/27/2017.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) Certified copy of order sent to state court via U.S. mail.(acc)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
MISSION CAPITAL PROPERTIES,
INC.,
15
16
ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR
LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER
JURISDICTION
Plaintiff,
13
14
Case No.: 17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS
v.
SEAN DOMINGUEZ, PAIGE
DOMINGUEZ, AND DOES 1-10,
Inclusive,
(Doc. No. 1)
Defendants.
17
18
19
This notice of removal represents Removing Defendants Sean and Paige
20
Dominguez’s (“Removing Defendants”) second attempt at removing the same unlawful
21
detainer action to this district court.1 (Doc. No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the
22
Court again sua sponte REMANDS the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DISCUSSION
23
24
After a review of Plaintiff Mission Capital Properties, Inc.’s (“Plaintiff”) Complaint
25
and Removing Defendants’ notice of removal, the Court notes that the only cause of action
26
27
28
1
Removing Defendants first filed a notice of removal of the same complaint in 17cv993AJB-JLB on May 15, 2017. (Doc. No. 1.) The Court sua sponte remanded the action on
May 17, 2017. (Doc. No. 4.)
1
17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS
1
asserted in the present matter is for unlawful detainer. (See generally Doc. No. 1.)
2
Accordingly, the Court finds it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
3
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction
4
only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See Kokkonen v. Guardian
5
Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action from state
6
court to federal court only if the district court could have original jurisdiction over the
7
matter. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.”
8
Luther v. Countrywide Home Loan Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008).
9
Moreover, there is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction and the party
10
seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v.
11
Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Remand is necessary if it appears from the
12
face of the complaint that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed
13
action. See id. (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of
14
removal in the first instance.”).
15
Here, the Court finds Plaintiff is bringing a single cause of action against Removing
16
Defendants for unlawful detainer. (Doc. No. 1 at 8.) Thus, because this is a purely state law
17
cause of action, the Court does not have federal question jurisdiction and must remand the
18
matter. See Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, No. EDCV 09-1660 PSG, 2009 WL 3157411,
19
at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful
20
detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the
21
complaint, it is clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”); see also
22
Southland Homes Real Estate & Inv., LLC v. Lam, No. SACV 11-32-JST (RNBx), 2011
23
WL 781243, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2011) (same).
24
Removing Defendants assert that they have federal question jurisdiction as their
25
claim is based upon a notice that Plaintiff’s signed that references 12 U.S.C. § 5201. (Doc.
26
No. 1 at 2–3.) However, this statute does not bestow jurisdiction to Removing Defendants
27
to have their case heard in federal court. Instead, the Court highlights for Removing
28
Defendants’ benefit that the purpose of that statute is to “provide authority and facilities”
2
17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS
1
to the “Secretary of the Treasury.” See 12 U.S.C. § 5201(1).
2
In addition, the face of the Complaint clearly shows that this Court does not possess
3
diversity jurisdiction over the matter. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction
4
there must be “complete diversity” between the parties and the amount in controversy
5
requirement of $75,000 must be met. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, the Complaint clearly
6
states that Plaintiff seeks $70.00 per day in damages, beginning on March 7, 2017, for each
7
day Removing Defendants remain in possession of the subject premises. (Doc. No. 1 at
8
11.) As of the date of this Order that amounts to a little over $16,000.00, which is far less
9
than the $75,000.00 needed for diversity jurisdiction. Moreover, the notice of removal
10
provides that both Plaintiff and Removing Defendants are citizens of California. (Id. at 2.)
11
Thus, the Court also lacks diversity jurisdiction over the matter. See 28 U.S.C. §
12
1332(a)(1).
13
14
In sum, the Court lacks both federal question and diversity jurisdiction in the instant
action. Thus, remand to the San Diego Superior Court is required.
15
CONCLUSION
16
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the
17
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to the San Diego Superior Court. Removing
18
Defendants are warned that any further attempts to remove their unlawful detainer action
19
to federal court will result in the Court initiating proceedings to hold them in contempt of
20
Court for violation of this Order or imposing pre-filing restrictions on them as vexatious
21
litigants.
22
23
IT IS SO ORDERED.
24
Dated: October 27, 2017
25
26
27
28
3
17-cv-2167-AJB-AGS
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?