(UD)(PS) ESA Management, LLC v. Gerfin

[9] 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 11 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [12] 13 ESA Management, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00434-JAM-DB 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT 16 Laura Gerfin, 17 Defendant. [19] The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral [20] to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and [21] Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) [22] (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may [23] retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate [24] Judge.”). [25] On February 25, 2020 Defendant Laura Gerfin filed a Notice [26] of Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from the [27] Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. [28] 1 For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case 2 to Sacramento County Superior Court. 3 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), a defendant may remove an action 4 to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 5 Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 6 (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 7 Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 8 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 9 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Generally, a 10 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 11 a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 12 initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). The defendant seeking 13 removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 14 establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 15 rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 16 Here, Defendant does not cite any basis for the Court’s 17 jurisdiction. 18 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; they lack 19 inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 20 can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 21 Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve 22 diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which 23 the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 24 Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 25 (1989). Federal courts are presumptively without jurisdiction 26 over civil actions. Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377 . Lack of subject 27 matter jurisdiction is never waived and may be raised by the 28 Court sua sponte. Attorneys Trust v. Videotape Computer Prods., 1 Inc., 93 F.3d 593 , 594-95 (9th Cir. 1996). “Nothing is to be 2 more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction. 3 Jurisdiction is what its power rests upon. Without jurisdiction 4 it is nothing.” In re Mooney, 841 F.2d 1003, 1006 (9th Cir. 5 1988). 6 The Ninth Circuit has held that the removal statute should 7 be strictly construed in favor of remand and against removal. 8 Harris v. Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 9 2005). The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction 10 means that the defendant always has the burden of establishing 11 that removal is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & 12 Assocs., 903 F.2d 709 , 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche 13 Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal 14 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the 15 right of removal in the first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 16 F.2d 564 , 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 In this case, Defendant is unable to establish jurisdiction 18 before this Court because the complaint filed in the state court, 19 20UD00400, contains a single cause of action for unlawful 20 detainer. Unlawful detainer actions are strictly within the 21 province of state court. A defendant’s attempt to create federal 22 subject-matter jurisdiction by adding claims or defenses to a 23 notice of removal will not succeed. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 24 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest 25 upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill 26 Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law 27 defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a 28 federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption 1 and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 2 In determining the presence or absence of federal 3 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 4 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 5 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 6 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 7 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 8 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 9 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 10 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 11 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 12 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 13 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 14 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 15 law.”). 16 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim for 17 unlawful detainer. The face of a properly-pled state law 18 unlawful detainer action does not present a federal question. 19 Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint avoids federal question 20 jurisdiction. Furthermore, Defendant has not met her burden of 21 showing the Court has diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s 22 complaint sets the amount in controversy as less than $10,000. 23 Notice of Removal at 3. Subject to a “good faith” requirement, 24 “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls.” St. Paul Mercury 25 Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289-290 (1938). 26 Defendant failed to show Plaintiff’s pleading of the amount in 27 controversy was made in bad faith. Consequently, she has failed 28 to show the Court has diversity jurisdiction over the suit. 1 The Court REMANDS this case to Sacramento County Superior 2 Court for all future proceedings. Defendant’s motion to proceed 3 in forma pauperis, ECF No. 3, is DENIED as moot. [4] 5 Dated: February 27, 2020 6 /s/ John A. Mendez________________ 7 United States District Court Judge