GB Inland Properties II LLC v. Shahin Niknejad et al
Filing
13
MINUTE ORDER (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Because this Court does not have jurisdiction over this Unlawful Detainer action, the matter is REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Su perior Court, Santa Monica Courthouse, Case No. 13R1454. Remanding case to Los Angeles Superior Court, Case number 13R1454. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (mailed copies 8/20/13) (lom) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/20/2013: # 1 Remand Letter CV 103) (lom).
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
LA CV13-04160 JAK (SHx)
Title
GB Inland Properties II, LLC v. Shahin Niknejad, et al.
Present: The Honorable
Date
August 20, 2013
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrea Keifer
Not Reported
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
I.
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO LOS ANGELES
COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT JS-6
Background
On May 9, 2013, GB Inland Properties II LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an Unlawful Detainer action against Shahin
Niknejad, Amit Sarin, Anila Das, and Mandeep Sen (“Defendants”) seeking possession of the property
located at 7625 Minstrel Ave., West Hills, CA 91304. Dkt. 6-3. On June 11, 2013, Defendants removed
the action to this Court. Id. For the reasons stated in this Order, the action is REMANDED to the Superior
Court.
II. Analysis
As a court of limited jurisdiction, see Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994), this Court must determine the issue of subject matter jurisdiction before reaching the merits of a
case, see Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998).
No federal question jurisdiction is present in this case. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over “all
civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “For
a case to arise under federal law, a plaintiff’s well-pleaded complaint must establish either (1) that federal
law creates the cause of action or (2) that the plaintiff’s asserted right to relief depends on the resolution
of a substantial question of federal law. Federal jurisdiction cannot hinge upon defenses or
counterclaims, whether actual or anticipated.” K2 Am. Corp. v. Roland Oil & Gas, LLC, 653 F.3d 1024,
1029 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In this case, Plaintiff’s Unlawful Detainer
complaint does not include a cause of action that arises under federal law. Unlawful Detainer actions,
which concern the right to the possession of real property, arise under state law. Although Defendants
seek to raise defenses that are based on federal laws, that is not a basis for federal question jurisdiction.
Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10-12 (1983); Wayne v. DHL
Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002).
Nor does this Court have diversity jurisdiction over this action. Diversity jurisdiction exists only where a
civil action is between citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.
LA CV13-04160 JAK (SHx)
Date
Title
August 20, 2013
GB Inland Properties II, LLC v. Shahin Niknejad, et al.
U.S.C. § 1332. Complete diversity of citizenship is required: “the citizenship of each plaintiff [must be]
different from that of each defendant.” Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1043 (9th Cir. 2009).
Here, the face of the Unlawful Detainer complaint seeks damages in the amount of $63.57 per day,
beginning on March 23, 2013, which to date totals less than $10,000. Dkt. 6-1. Therefore, the amount in
controversy does not meet the required amount for diversity jurisdiction, and for this reason there is no
diversity jurisdiction.
III. Conclusion
Because this Court does not have jurisdiction over this Unlawful Detainer action, the matter is
REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, Santa Monica Courthouse, Case No. 13R1454.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
:
Initials of Preparer
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
ak
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?
