Priscilla Saravia v. Anthony James Paxton et al
Filing
5
ORDER REMANDING action to state court by Judge Philip S. Gutierrez. The Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter and therefore REMANDS the case. The Court declines to award attorney's fees. Further, as this is Defe ndant's second attempt to remove this Complaint to federal court, Defendant is warned that additional attempts to remove this action may result in the imposition of Rule 11 sanctions. Case number 13UO2301 Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 remand letter) (bp)
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6(lc)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Date
Case No.
CV 13-4874 PSG (RZx)
Title
August 6, 2013
Priscilla Saravia v. Anthony James Paxton, et al.
Present:
The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge
Wendy Hernandez
Deputy Clerk
Not Reported
Court Reporter / Recorder
Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
Not Present
Not Present
Proceedings:
(In Chambers): Order REMANDING action to state court
On July 5, 2013, Defendant Anthony James Paxton (“Defendant”) filed a notice of
removal of a civil action for unlawful detainer brought by Plaintiff Priscilla Saravia (“Plaintiff”).
See Dkt #1. After reviewing Defendant’s notice of removal and the underlying complaint, the
Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Moore v. Maricopa Cnty.
Sheriff’s Office, 657 F.3d 890, 894 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The Court is obligated to determine sua
sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction.”).
Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see
28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If at any
time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. §
1447(c); Int’l Primate Prot. League v. Adm’rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72, 87 (1991).
There is a “strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal
always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. See Geographic Expeditions, Inc.
v. Estate of Lhotka ex rel. Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010). Indeed, the removal
statute is strictly construed against removal and if there is any doubt as to the propriety of
removal, the case must be remanded. See id.
When jurisdiction is based on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 “a defendant may not [generally] remove
a case to federal court unless the plaintiff’s complaint establishes that the case ‘arises under’
federal law.” Aetna Health Inc. v. Davila, 542 U.S. 200, 207 (2004) (emphasis in original).
This “well-pleaded complaint” rule requires that a federal question be evident from the face of
the plaintiff’s complaint for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to exist. See Rivet v. Regions
Bank of La., 522 U.S. 470, 475 (1998). Here, the Complaint asserts only a claim for unlawful
detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law. Thus, from the face of the
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6(lc)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
CV 13-4874 PSG (RZx)
Title
Date
August 6, 2013
Priscilla Saravia v. Anthony James Paxton, et al.
Complaint, no basis for federal question jurisdiction exists.
Defendant’s notice of removal argues federal question jurisdiction is established based
upon the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. NOR ¶ 5. However, under the wellpleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s federal claims or defenses may not serve as a basis for
removal. See Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985); Le v. Young
Champions Recreation Programs, No. SACV 08-414 AHS (RNBx), 2008 WL 1970186, at *1
(C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2008) (“[R]emoval cannot be based on a counterclaim, cross-claim or third
party claim raising a federal question; to hold otherwise would allow defendants to determine the
removeability of a case.”) (citing Great N. Ry. Co. v. Alexander, 246 U.S. 276, 281 (1918)).
Therefore, Defendants may not remove on the basis of a federal question.
Further, the Court notes that there is no diversity jurisdiction in this matter. For a federal
court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be “complete” diversity between the parties
and the $75,000.00 amount in controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtis,
7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The unlawful detainer complaint seeks
only damages in an amount less than $10,000. Compl. at 1. Accordingly, the amount in
controversy requirement has not been met.
Defendant’s notice of removal alleges that removal jurisdiction is proper based on 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1441. See NOR ¶ 4. Under Section 1441, a party may remove an action to
the district court embracing the state court where the action is currently pending if the district
court would also have original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Since Defendant has
failed to provide a sufficient basis for original federal jurisdiction, the action cannot properly be
removed under Section 1441.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this
matter and therefore REMANDS the case. The Court declines to award attorneys’ fees. Further,
as this is Defendant’s second attempt to remove this Complaint to federal court, Defendant is
warned that additional attempts to remove this action may result in the imposition of Rule 11
sanctions.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (10/08)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
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?
