Federal National Mortgage Association v. Arturo Arredondo et al
Filing
4
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Jacqueline H. Nguyen: Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this matter to the Santa Barbara Superior Court, Santa Barbara County Santa Maria, Case number 1387931 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:11-cv-06584-JHN -SSx
Title
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Arturo Arredondo et al.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
September 21, 2011
JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN
Alicia Mamer
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not present
Not present
Proceedings:
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO SANTA BARBARA SUPERIOR COURT
(In Chambers)
On June 24, 2011, Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association (“Plaintiff”) brought
a Complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendants Arturo Arredondo, Roberto
Mendoza, and Esmerelda Mendoza (“Defendants”) in state court. On August 10, 2011,
Defendants removed the case to federal court. (Docket No. 1.) Having considered the
Notice of Removal, the Court finds no federal jurisdiction and hereby REMANDS the
case to the Santa Barbara Superior Court.
I.
Discussion
Removal to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which in relevant part states
that “any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United
States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant . . .” 28 U.S.C. §
1441(a). However, the Court may remand a case to state court for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on
the party invoking federal jurisdiction.” U.S. v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir.
2008).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising
under” federal law. “The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed
by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded
complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The only exception
to this rule is where plaintiff’s federal claim has been disguised by “artful pleading,” such
as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
2:11-cv-06584-JHN -SSx
Date
Title
September 21, 2011
Federal National Mortgage Association v. Arturo Arredondo et al.
Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, although Defendants allege that the claims arise under federal law, Plaintiff’s only
cause of action is for unlawful detainer in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure
§ 1161a. (Notice of Removal, Compl. 1.) No federal question is presented on the face of
the Complaint. Therefore, no federal question jurisdiction exists.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court also has original jurisdiction over civil actions
where there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds
$75,000. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001).
However, neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal alleges the citizenship of the
parties. Without an allegation as to citizenship, Defendants cannot meet their burden of
establishing diversity. Moreover, the Complaint specifically alleges that the damages
have accrued at the daily rental rate of $60.00 per day from March 21, 2011, which
amounts to approximately $10,800. Thus, the amount in controversy does not exceed
$75,000. For these reasons, no diversity jurisdiction exists.
II.
Conclusion
Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this matter to the Santa Barbara Superior
Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
N/A
AM
Page 2 of 2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
