L & M Development Corporation of S.D v. Gregory et al

Filing 4

ORDER Sua Sponte Remanding Case to State Court. Defendants' motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. No. #3 ] is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo on 10/8/19.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service, certified copy sent to State Court)(dlg) (sjt).

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

L&M Development Corporation of S.D.,

Case No.: 19cv1940-CAB-BGS

Plaintiff,

12
13

v.

14

ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING
TO STATE COURT

James Gregory, Rowena Gregory, Does 1
to 10, inclusive,

15

Defendant.

16
17

On August 15, 2019, Plaintiff L&M Development Corporation of SD, filed a

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

verified complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendants James Gregory and Rowena
Gregory in San Diego County Superior Court. [Doc. No. 1-2.] On October 7, 2019,
Defendants James Gregory and Rowena Gregory, proceeding pro se, removed the action
to this court. [Doc. No. 1.] After reviewing Defendants’ notice of removal and the
underlying complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
case. Therefore, for the following reasons, the Court REMANDS this action to state
court.
DISCUSSION
A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court by the defendant or
defendants if the federal court would have had original subject matter jurisdiction over
1
19cv1940-CAB-BGS

1

that suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir.

2

1977). The existence of federal jurisdiction must be determined on the face of the

3

plaintiff’s complaint. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A

4

“cause of action arises under federal law only when the plaintiff’s well pleaded complaint

5

raises issues of federal law.” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63

6

(1987). A well pleaded complaint must establish “either that federal law creates the

7

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

8

substantial question of federal law.” Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation

9

Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983). The Court may remand sua sponte or on motion of a

10

party, and the party who invoked the federal court’s removal jurisdiction has the burden

11

of establishing federal jurisdiction. See Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190,

12

1195 (9th Cir. 1988), citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921).

13

The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and any doubt is

14

resolved in favor of remand. Boggs v. Lewis, 863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988); Libhart

15

v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979). “Federal jurisdiction

16

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

17

Gaus v. Miles, 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992).

18

Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal

19

question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28

20

U.S.C. § 1332. Defendants allege that federal questions have been raised by their answer

21

to the complaint. [Doc. No. 1 at 2.] The Court, however, must consider sua sponte

22

whether jurisdiction actually exists. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115, 1116

23

(9th Cir. 2004) (observing that a court is required to consider sua sponte whether it has

24

subject matter jurisdiction). Here, federal question jurisdiction is absent because no

25

“federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.”

26

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Plaintiff’s complaint asserts a

27

single claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.

28

See Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n v. Enshiwat, 2012 WL 683106, at *1 (C.D. Cal. March 2,
2
19cv1940-CAB-BGS

1

2012) (“Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the province of state court”)

2

(quotations omitted); Galileo Fin. v. Miin Sun Park, EDCV 09-1660 PSG, 2009 WL

3

3157411 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009) (“the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful

4

detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law.”) Likewise, here, the face

5

of Plaintiff’s complaint makes clear that no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.

6

In addition, diversity jurisdiction is absent. For a federal court to exercise diversity

7

jurisdiction, the amount in controversy requirement must be met. See 28 U.S.C. §

8

1332(a). Plaintiff’s complaint clearly demonstrates that the amount in controversy does

9

not exceed $75,000, exclusive of attorneys fees and costs, as Plaintiff seeks limited civil

10

damages totaling less than $10,000. Thus, diversity jurisdiction is lacking.

11
12

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter

13

and therefore REMANDS the case to state court. Defendants’ motion to proceed in

14

forma pauperis [Doc. No. 3] is DENIED AS MOOT.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 8, 2019

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
19cv1940-CAB-BGS