Deutsche Bank National Trust Company v. Dele C Silva et al
Filing
6
ORDER by Judge Otis D Wright, II: The Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction overthis matter and hereby REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.The June 11, 2012 hearing on Plaintiffs Motion to Remand is VACATED 5 ,and no appearanc es are necessary. The Clerk of Court shall close this case. cc: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court, Bellflower, No. 12C00438. (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (lc) Modified on 5/10/2012 (lc).
1
O
2
JS-6
3
4
5
6
CC: order, docket, remand letter to Los Angeles Superior Court,
Bellflower, No. 12 C 00438
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL
COMPANY, as Trustee,
12
13
14
15
v.
Plaintiff,
Case No. 2:12-cv-03869-ODW (JEMx)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS
ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT
DELE C. SILVA, and DOES 1–5,
Defendants.
16
17
18
The Court is in receipt of Defendant Dele C. Silva’s Notice of Removal (ECF
19
No. 1) and Plaintiff Deutsche Bank National Company’s May 8, 2012 Motion to
20
Remand (ECF No. 5). Having carefully considered the papers filed in conjunction
21
with Defendant’s Notice and Plaintiff’s Motion, the Court determines that it lacks
22
subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, the case is hereby
23
REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court.
24
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter
25
jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g.,
26
Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A suit filed in
27
state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court would have had
28
original jurisdiction over the suit. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). A removed action must be
1
remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
2
§ 1447(c).
3
The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction.
4
Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Gaus
5
v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992)). Here, Defendant’s Notice of
6
Removal purports to be premised on federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
7
§ 1331. It also, however, contains amount-in-controversy allegations suggesting
8
Defendant may also have intended to proceed on diversity jurisdiction grounds in the
9
alternative. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The Court will briefly address both.
10
“The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the
11
‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only
12
when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded
13
complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). “Thus, the
14
plaintiff is the master of his complaint and may avoid federal jurisdiction by relying
15
exclusively on state law. It is settled law that a case may not be removed to federal
16
court on the basis of a federal defense . . . .” Hunter v. Phillip Morris USA, 582 F.3d
17
1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted);
18
see also Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10
19
(1983) (an actual or anticipated federal defense is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction).
20
A case removed from state court should be remanded if it appears that it was
21
removed improvidently. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “Because the ‘removal statutes are
22
strictly construed against removal,’ doubts about removal must be resolved in favor of
23
remand.” Dodd v. John Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co., 688 F. Supp. 564, 566 (E.D. Cal.
24
1988) (quoting Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir.
25
1979)); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal
26
jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first
27
instance.”).
28
2
1
To the extent Defendant contends this Court has jurisdiction over this case
2
pursuant to § 1331, “because this is an unlawful detainer action, a federal question
3
does not present itself.” Aurora Loan Servs. v. De La Rosa, No. 11-912, 2011 U.S.
4
Dist. LEXIS 69217, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011); see also IndyMac Fed. Bank,
5
F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. 09-2337, 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010)
6
(sua sponte remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
7
where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim); Galileo Fi. v.
8
Miin Sun Park, No. 09-1660, 2009 WL 3157411, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 24, 2009)
9
(“Here, the complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that
10
is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the complaint, it is clear that no
11
basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.”). Additionally, the Complaint does not
12
allege any other federal question, and any federal defense Defendant raises is
13
irrelevant with regard to jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court does not have jurisdiction
14
over this case under § 1331.
15
Defendant may alternatively contend that this Court has diversity jurisdiction
16
over this case pursuant to § 1332. Section 1332(a) provides that “the district courts
17
shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy
18
exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,” and is
19
between parties with diverse citizenship. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Diversity jurisdiction
20
does not exist in this matter.
21
For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete”
22
diversity between the parties, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000.00,
23
exclusive of interest and costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Under the “legal certainty”
24
standard, a federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction under § 1332 where “upon
25
the face of the complaint, it is obvious that the suit cannot involve the necessary
26
amount.” Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d
27
1102, 1106 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indemnity Co. v. Red Cab Co.,
28
303 U.S. 283, 292 (1938)). “In actions seeking declaratory or injunctive relief, it is
3
1
well established that the amount in controversy is measured by the value of the object
2
of the litigation.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281 F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting
3
Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)).
4
Here, Defendant’s removal papers allege that the amount in controversy
5
“exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs,” as the “Complaint concerns a
6
Deed of Trust with an original balance of $412,500.00 with an alleged purchase price
7
of $486,586.97.” (Notice of Removal 4.) According to Defendant, “The amount in
8
controversy is satisfied because the subject matter of Plaintiff’s litigation is a
9
challenge to a security interest in a loan in the amount of $412,500.00, and Plaintiff
10
11
seeks to gain possession of Defendant’s property.” (Id.)
Defendant misconstrues the nature of this action. This unlawful detainer action
12
does not “challenge . . . a security interest in a loan,” as Plaintiff has already
13
purchased the subject property “under a power of sale contained in a Deed of Trust
14
dated May 11, 2004” and “Plaintiff’s title pursuant to the sale has been duly perfected
15
and a Trustee’s Deed conveying title to plaintiff has been duly recorded in the county
16
where the Property is situated.” (Compl. ¶ 4.) As a result, “Plaintiff is the owner of,
17
and [is] entitled to immediate possession of[,] the property.” (Compl. ¶ 5.)
18
Accordingly, the object of this unlawful detainer action is not the amount of the
19
challenged security interest in the property, as Defendant alleges, but rather the fair
20
rental value of the premises Defendant now owes Plaintiff—$50.00 per day—for
21
remaining in a home that no longer belongs to Defendant from January 3, 2012,
22
through entry of judgment. (Compl. 3.) Indeed, the face of Plaintiff’s Complaint
23
indicates that Plaintiff does not demand an amount in excess of $10,000.00.
24
Therefore, the amount in controversy in this case does not exceed $75,000.00,
25
exclusive of interest and costs.
26
27
For the reasons discussed above, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction over
this matter and hereby REMANDS this case to the Los Angeles County Superior
28
4
1
Court. The June 11, 2012 hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is VACATED,
2
and no appearances are necessary. The Clerk of Court shall close this case.
3
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5
6
May 9, 2012
7
8
9
____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5
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?