U.S. Bank NA v. Tovar-Guzman et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting ECF No. 8 Motion to Remand; directing that this case be remanded consistent with this order; directing Clerk to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/20/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF; certified copies of this order and docket sheet mailed to Henderson Justice Court - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10
11
12

U.S. BANK NA, SUCCESSOR TRUSTEE
TO BANK OF AMERICA, NA,
SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO
LASALLE BANK, NA, ON BEHALF OF
THE REGISTERED HOLDERS OF BEAR
STEARNS ASSET BACKED
SECURITIES I LLC, ASSET-BACKED
CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2006-HE8, its
successors and/or assigns,

13

Case No. 2:16-cv-00445-MMD-CWH
ORDER

Plaintiff,
v.

14
15

ANTONIETA TOVAR-GUZMAN,
ROBERT J. STONE SR., and DOE
OCCUPANTS I through X, inclusive,

16
Defendants.
17
18

I.

SUMMARY

19

Defendant Joseph Eugene Piovo (“Piovo”),1 proceeding pro se, removed this

20

action from the Henderson Justice Court for Clark County. (ECF No. 1.) Before the Court

21

is Plaintiff U.S. Bank NA’s motion to remand (“Motion”). (ECF No. 8.) The Court has

22

reviewed Piovo’s response (ECF Nos. 11, 13) and U.S. Bank’s reply (ECF No. 15). For

23

the reasons discussed herein, U.S. Bank’s Motion is granted.

24

II.

BACKGROUND

25

U.S. Bank filed a Verified Complaint for Unlawful Detainer (“Complaint”), seeking

26

possession of the real property located at 1853 Indian Bend Drive in Henderson,

27
28

1Piovo

represents that he is named as a “DOE Occupant” in the underlying
complaint. (ECF No. 1 at 1.)

1

Nevada (“the Property”). (ECF No. 8 at 19-21.) U.S. Bank alleges that it purchased the

2

Property at a trustee’s sale but defendants were in possession of the Property. (Id. at 20.)

3

U.S. Bank requests as relief possession of the Property, rent of no more than $1,000.00

4

and costs and fees in the total amount of $596. (Id. at 21.)

5

III.

DISCUSSION

6

Piovo alleges that removal is based on federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 1 at

7

4-7.) As support, he makes allegations about the nature of the state court action and US

8

Bank’s alleged fraudulent conduct. (Id.) U.S. Bank counters that the Court lacks both

9

federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. (ECF No. 8.) The Court agrees.

10

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject-matter jurisdiction

11

only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. U.S. Const. art. III, § 2,

12

cl. 1; e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit

13

filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had

14

original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, courts strictly construe

15

the removal statute against removal jurisdiction, and “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be

16

rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Gaus v. Miles,

17

Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (emphasis added). The party seeking removal

18

bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,

19

445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006).

20

The “presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-

21

pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal

22

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

23

Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The Complaint involves an unlawful detainer

24

claim. (ECF No. 8 at 19-21.) It does not present a federal question.2 The Court thus

25

cannot exercise federal question jurisdiction.

26

///

27
28

2Piovo

files counterclaims (ECF No. 5), but the Court only looks to the Complaint
to determine jurisdiction.
2

1

Nor does the Court have diversity jurisdiction. To establish subject matter

2

jurisdiction pursuant to diversity of citizenship, the party asserting jurisdiction must show:

3

(1) complete diversity of citizenship among opposing parties and (2) an amount in

4

controversy exceeding $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Where a defendant removes a

5

plaintiff’s state action on the basis of diversity jurisdiction, the defendant must either: (1)

6

demonstrate that it is facially evident from the plaintiff’s complaint that the plaintiff seeks

7

in excess of $75,000, or (2) prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount

8

in controversy meets the jurisdictional limit. Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th

9

Cir. 2004). U.S. Bank seeks possession of the Property and claims up to $1000 in rent.

10

Clearly, the amount at stake in the underlying action is less than $75,000.3

11

IV.

CONCLUSION

12

It is therefore ordered that U.S. Bank’s motion to remand (ECF No. 8) is granted.

13

It is ordered that this case be remanded consistent with this Order.

14

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

15
16

DATED THIS 20th day of October 2016.

17
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3Piovo

disputes U.S. Bank’s ownership of the Property, but such dispute is not the
claim presented in the Complaint.
3