(UD) (PS) Wilmington Trust National Association v. Harms

[8] 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [11] 12 WILMINGTON TRUST NATIONAL No. 2:21-cv-02201-JAM-JDP ASSOCIATION, [13] Plaintiff, 14 SUA SPONTE ORDER REMANDING v. ACTION TO STATE COURT [15] LAURIE HARMS, et al, [16] Defendants. [17] 18 The undersigned revokes any actual or anticipated referral 19 to a Magistrate Judge for the purposes of Findings and 20 Recommendations in this case. See Local Rule 302(d) 21 (“Notwithstanding any other provision of this Rule, a Judge may 22 retain any matter otherwise routinely referred to a Magistrate 23 Judge.”). 24 On November 30, 2021, Defendant Gavin Mehl filed a Notice of 25 Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from 26 Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. 27 For the following reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case 28 to Sacramento County Superior Court. 1 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a), a defendant may remove an action 2 to federal court if the district court has original jurisdiction. 3 Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009) 4 (quoting Ansley v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co., 340 F.3d 858, 861 (9th 5 Cir. 2003)). If at any time before final judgment it appears 6 that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 7 case shall be remanded. 28 U.S.C. § 1447 (c). Generally, a 8 defendant seeking to remove an action to federal court must file 9 a notice of removal within thirty days of receiving a copy of the 10 initial pleading. 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). The defendant seeking 11 removal of an action to federal court has the burden of 12 establishing federal jurisdiction in the case. California ex 13 rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004). 14 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and lack 15 inherent or general subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts 16 can adjudicate only those cases authorized by the United States 17 Constitution and Congress. Generally, those cases involve 18 diversity of citizenship or a federal question, or cases in which 19 the United States is a party. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 20 Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994); Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545 21 (1989). 22 Here, Defendant is attempting to remove an unlawful detainer 23 action based on federal subject matter jurisdiction and diversity 24 jurisdiction. Notice of Removal at 3-4. However, the Ninth 25 Circuit has held that the removal statute should be strictly 26 construed in favor of remand and against removal. Harris v. 27 Bankers Life and Cas. Co., 425 F.3d 689, 698 (9th Cir. 2005). 28 The “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction means that 1 the defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal 2 is proper. Nishimoto v. Federman–Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 3 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 4 F.2d 1190 , 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). Federal jurisdiction must be 5 rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 6 first instance. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 7 1992). 8 In determining the presence or absence of federal 9 jurisdiction in removal cases, the “well-pleaded complaint rule” 10 applies, “which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only 11 when a federal question is presented on the face of the 12 plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 13 Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Moreover, “it is well 14 established that plaintiff is the ‘master of her complaint’ and 15 can plead to avoid federal jurisdiction.” Lowdermilk v. U.S. 16 Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2007); Metro. 17 Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987) (citing Gully v. 18 First Nat’l Bank, 299 U.S. 109 (1936)) (“It is long settled law 19 that a cause of action arises under federal law only when the 20 plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint raises issues of federal 21 law.”). 22 Plaintiff’s complaint raises a single state law claim. The 23 face of a properly-pled state law unlawful detainer action does 24 not present a federal question. Therefore, Plaintiff’s complaint 25 avoids federal question jurisdiction. Defendant cannot inject a 26 federal issue through his answer. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, [27] 556 U.S. 49, 50 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot 28 “rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy 1 Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law 2 defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a 3 federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption 4 and is anticipated in the plaintiff’s complaint.”). 5 Defendant is also unable to establish subject matter 6 jurisdiction before this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. 7 Removal based on diversity jurisdiction requires that the parties 8 be completely diverse and that the amount in controversy exceed 9 $ 75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a)(1). In unlawful detainer actions, 10 “California courts have noted that ‘the right to possession alone 11 [is] involved,’ – not title to the property.” Litton Loan 12 Servicing, L.P. v. Villegas, No. C 10-05478 PJH, 2011 WL 204322 , 13 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (quoting Evans v. Superior Ct., [14] 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 168 (1977)). Thus, “the amount of damages 15 sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real 16 property, determines the amount in controversy.” Id. 17 Defendant has failed to prove that the amount in controversy 18 requirement is met. Plaintiff seeks $162.66 per day from the 19 expiration of the demand for surrender, June 2, 2021, through the 20 date of which Defendants relinquish possession. Thus far, this 21 would equal $ 29,278.80. See Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s 22 London v. Argonaut Ins. Co., 264 F. Supp. 2d 926 , 932 n.1 (N.D. 23 Cal. 2003 ) (amount in controversy determined at the time of 24 removal). Because the damages sought from the unlawful 25 possession of the property do not exceed $75,000, diversity 26 jurisdiction is lacking. Moreover, in removal cases where the 27 purported basis of jurisdiction is diversity, removal is not 28 permitted where a defendant is a citizen of the state in which 1 the plaintiff originally brought the action. See 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1441(b). Thus, Defendant, a citizen of California cannot 3 properly remove this action. 4 Furthermore, Defendant has failed to establish that 28 5 U.S.C. § 1443 warrants removal. 28 U.S.C. § 1443 (a)(1) provides 6 that a defendant may remove from the state court any action 7 “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the 8 courts of such State a right under any law providing for the 9 equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all 10 persons within the jurisdiction thereof.” Defendant asserts the 11 state court denied equal access to the court by not allowing 12 certain tenants to participate in the action. Notice of Removal 13 at 5. However, section 1443 is interpretated narrowly. Bank of 14 America, National Ass’n v. German, 19-cv-0969-GPC(KSC), 2019 WL 15 2353630, at *3 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2019). A party petitioning for 16 removal under section 1443 must meet a two-part test: 17 “First the petitioner must assert [. . .] rights that are 18 given to them by explicit statutory enactment protecting equal 19 racial civil rights [. . .] Second, petitioners must assert that 20 the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation 21 must be supported by reference to a statute or a constitutional 22 provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the 23 federal rights.” 24 Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998-99 (9th Cir. 25 2006) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Here, 26 Defendant has not identified a state law or constitutional 27 provision that directs state courts to ignore Defendant’s civil 28 rights. ene nn nnn een nnn nnn en een ne em EO OI I ON EEO 1 Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this case to Sacramento 2 County Superior Court for all future proceedings. 3 Dated: December 1, 2021 Lh Ion 5 teiren staves odermacr 7008