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)

Download PDF
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?