Carrillo Property, LLC 1-100 v. Robinson et al

Filing 2

ORDER Sua Sponte Remanding Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Defendants have not adequately established a basis for this Court's subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte remands this action to the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County. Signed by Judge Michael M. Anello on 12/14/2017. (Certified copy of order mailed to Superior Court, San Diego County)(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(rmc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case No.: 17cv2505-MMA (JLB)

CARRILLO PROPERTY, LLC 1-100,
v.

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING
ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff,

JENNIFER ROBINSON; and RUCHELL
ROBINSON,
Defendants.

17
18

On December 14, 2017, Defendants Jennifer Robinson and Ruchell Robinson

19

(“Defendants”), proceeding pro se, filed a notice of removal in this unlawful detainer

20

action from the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County. See Doc.

21

No. 1. Based upon the Court’s review of Defendants’ notice of removal, the Court finds

22

it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Accordingly, the Court sua

23

sponte REMANDS the action to state court.

24
25

DISCUSSION
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,

26

479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). Federal courts possess only that power authorized by

27

the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534,

28

541 (1986). The Court is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal
-1-

17cv2505-MMA (JLB)

1

subject matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better

2

Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090,

3

1092 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, et seq. A

4

state court action can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in federal

5

court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392, (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76

6

F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, for an action to be removed on the basis of

7

federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal law creates

8

the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the

9

resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v.

10

Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-11 (1983).

11

Additionally, a federal court also has jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of

12

different states when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

13

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal,

14

and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Nishimoto v.

15

Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). “Federal

16

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first

17

instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Whether federal

18

jurisdiction exists is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar, 482 U.S.

19

at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule is a “powerful doctrine [that] severely limits the

20

number of cases in which state law ‘creates the cause of action’ that may be initiated in or

21

removed to federal district court . . . .” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9-10. Under this

22

rule, the federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

23

pleaded complaint.” Id.; accord Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183

24

(9th Cir. 2002).

25

Defendants argue that this action is properly removable based on federal question

26

jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 1 at 8. Specifically, Defendants allege that the Court has

27

jurisdiction pursuant to the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, the American

28

Recovery and Investment Act, the Securities Act, and the Exchange Act. See id. In
-2-

17cv2505-MMA (JLB)

1

liberally construing the notice of removal, any purported federal rights or claims would

2

be defenses and potential counterclaims against Plaintiff. However, neither defenses nor

3

counterclaims are considered in evaluating whether a federal question appears on the face

4

of a plaintiff’s complaint. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (federal

5

question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v.

6

Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law

7

claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal

8

preemption and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). Because no federal claim is

9

present on the face of the state court complaint, Defendants fail to establish that the Court

10
11

has federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441.
Defendants also fail to establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to

12

28 U.S.C. § 1332. The notice of removal does not demonstrate that the amount in

13

controversy exceeds $75,000, and the face of the state court complaint clearly

14

demonstrates that Plaintiff seeks damages not to exceed $10,000. See Doc. No. 1-3 at 2.

15

Thus, Defendants fail to establish that the Court has diversity jurisdiction.

16
17

In sum, Defendants have not adequately established a basis for this Court’s subject
matter jurisdiction. The Court must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

18
19

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Defendants have not adequately established a basis for this

20

Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this

21

action to the Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County. The Clerk

22

of Court is instructed to close the case.

23
24
25
26

Date: December 14, 2017

_____________________________
HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO
United States District Judge

27
28
-3-

17cv2505-MMA (JLB)