U.S. Bank National Association v. Evalobo et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting 5 Motion to Remand to Justice Court. This case is remanded back to Justice Court - Henderson Township, Clark County, Nevada, Case No. 15CH001955, and Clerk is directed to close case. (Certified copy of this order and docket sheet sent to Justice Court - Henderson Township on 10/14/2015.) Signed by Judge Jennifer A. Dorsey on 10/14/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
2
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
3
4
5
6
7

U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee,
Successor in Interest to Bank of America
National Association, as Trustee, Successor by
Merger to LaSalle Bank National Association,
as Trustee for Lehman XS Trust Mortgage
Passthrough Certificates, Series 2006-11, its
successors and/or assigns,

Case No. 2:15-cv-1270-JAD-NJK

Order Remanding Case Back to Justice Court
for Lack of Subject-Matter Jurisdiction
[ECF 3, 5]

8
9
10

Plaintiff
v.
Richard Evalobo, Priscilla Santos Cortez, and
Doe Occupants I through X, inclusive,

11
Defendants
12
13

This is an unlawful detainer action that defendant Priscilla Santos Cortez—one of the

14

occupants of real property allegedly owned by the plaintiff bank—has removed from the Henderson,

15

Nevada, Justice Court.1 She contends that this is “a criminal matter brought under the disguise of a

16

non-judicial foreclosure” and that this court has jurisdiction on two bases. First, she asserts that

17

federal-question jurisdiction exists because the defendants were deprived of their due process rights

18

by the plaintiffs. Second, she claims diversity jurisdiction because the parties are completely

19

diverse and the plaintiff is wrongfully claiming title to a property worth “several times $75,000.”2

20

But there are no due process claims or title challenges pled in this case. Indeed, the

21

defendants have asserted no counterclaim at all. This case consists entirely of just a single

22

unlawful-detainer claim filed by the plaintiff bank. And the bank seeks damages in an amount far

23

below this court’s $75,000 jurisdictional threshold: it pleads damages of “no more than $1,000” in

24
25
26
27

1

ECF 1.

28

2

Id.

1

rental fees plus $596 in attorney’s fees and costs.3 In general, the amount in controversy is

2

ascertained from the face of the pleadings.4 If the plaintiff has alleged the amount in controversy in

3

good faith, the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls.5

4

On July 8, 2015, the court ordered removing defendant Cortez to show cause why this case

5

should not be remanded for want of jurisdiction.6 Cortez’s response to the order to show cause was

6

essentially that it is not her obligation “to prosecute the plaintiff” and that, by suggesting in her

7

removal that the plaintiff is engaging in a conspiracy, deprivation of civil rights, disloyalty against

8

the government, rebellion or insurrection, extortion, and defrauding the United States, she has

9

triggered federal jurisdiction.7

10

Plaintiff has timely moved to remand this case back to the Henderson, Nevada, Justice

11

Court.8 It argues that this is a simple unlawful-detainer action filed because the defendants refused

12

to vacate the home they lost to foreclosure.9

13
14

Discussion
This court lacks jurisdiction over this case. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) permits

15

a district court to ascertain at any time whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over a case, and 28

16

U.S.C. § 1447(c) requires remand if “at any time before final judgment it appears that the district

17

court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” Cortez’s enumeration of various federal rights or concepts

18

in her removal petition did not trigger this court’s limited jurisdiction. As the United States

19

Supreme Court explained in Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, “The presence or absence of federal-

20
21

3

ECF 1 at 28.

22

4

See Pachinger v. MGM Grand Hotel–Las Vegas, Inc., 802 F.2d 362, 363 (9th Cir. 1986).

23

5

See St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288 (1938).

6

ECF 3.

7

ECF 4.

8

ECF 5.

9

Id. at 3.

24
25
26
27
28

Page 2 of 4

1

question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal

2

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

3

pleaded complaint. The rule makes the plaintiff the master of the claim; he or she may avoid federal

4

jurisdiction by exclusive reliance on state law.”10 In this case, the plaintiff’s complaint lacks any

5

federal question; it pleads a single, state-law claim for unlawful detainer.

6

Nor has Cortez shown that diversity jurisdiction exists. Although she bears the burden on

7

removal to prove facts that show that the jurisdictional amount is satisfied here,11 she has not done

8

so. Her contention that the property is worth more than $75,000 is not relevant to this unlawful-

9

detainer action. As the master of the complaint, the bank seeks damages of just $1,596.00.12 This

10

case value falls far below the jurisdictional threshold necessary to trigger federal jurisdiction.

11
12

Conclusion
There is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, and “Federal jurisdiction must be

13

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.”13 This “‘strong

14

presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always has the burden of

15

establishing that removal is proper.”14 Cortez has not carried that burden. She has not shown cause

16

why this case should not be remanded, nor has she defeated the bank’s arguments for remand.

17

Accordingly, with good cause appearing and no reason to delay,

18
19
20

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the bank’s motion to
remand [ECF 5] is GRANTED;
This case is REMANDED back to the Justice Court - Henderson Township, Clark

21
22
10

Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (internal citations omitted).

11

Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).

25

12

ECF 10 at 3; ECF 1 at 28 (Complaint).

26

13

23
24

27
28

Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064
(9th Cir. 1979)).
14

Id.
Page 3 of 4

1

County, Nevada, Case No. 15CH001955, Dept. II for all further proceedings, and the Clerk of

2

Court is directed to close this case.

3

DATED October 14, 2015.

4
5
6

_________________________________
________
_
______________
__
__
_
_
Jennifer A. Dorsey
Dorsey
orse
United States District Judge
ates

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Page 4 of 4