RAC Development, Inc. v. Jacqueline Badio et al
Filing
6
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. For the reasons stated in the order, the Court finds that it lacks jurisdiction and REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 13P 02233. See Order for details. Case Terminated. Made JS-6, (Made JS-6. Case Terminated.) (Attachments: # 1 Certified copies of docket sheet adn ORder to Remand sent to State Court) (cch) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/27/2013: # 2 certified docket sheet) (cch). Modified on 8/27/2013 (cch). (Attachment 2 replaced on 8/27/2013) (cch). Modified on 8/27/2013 (cch). (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/27/2013) (cch). (Attachment 1 replaced on 8/27/2013) (cch).
<![CDATA[
O
JS-6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
RAC DEVELOPMENT, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JACQUELINE BADIO; DOES 1–10,
15
Case No. 2:13-cv-06133-ODW(AJWx)
ORDER REMANDING CASE TO
LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SUPERIOR COURT
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On August 21, 2013, Defendant Jacqueline Badio removed this case to this
Court—for the second time. (ECF No. 1.) Once again, the Court finds that removal is
improper.
The Court accordingly REMANDS this case to Los Angeles County
Superior Court.
To be clear, this unlawful-detainer action does not now—nor will it ever—
belong in federal court. First, this action does not give rise to a federal question. “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). A plaintiff may therefore
avoid federal jurisdiction by relying exclusively on state law, and “federal jurisdiction
cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense.” Vaden v. Discover Bank,
1
556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009); see also Hunter, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009) (“It
2
is settled law that a case may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal
3
defense.” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
4
Courts have repeatedly held that unlawful-detainer actions do not present a
5
federal question. Aurora Loan Servs. v. De La Rosa, No. 11-912, 2011 U.S. Dist.
6
LEXIS 69217, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 27, 2011). Moreover, HSBC’s First Amended
7
Complaint does not allege any other federal question, and any federal defense
8
Defendants raise is irrelevant to jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60; Hunter, 582
9
F.3d at 1042–43.
10
Second, the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction
11
threshold of $75,000.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b).
“In actions seeking
12
declaratory or injunctive relief, it is well established that the amount in controversy is
13
measured by the value of the object of the litigation.” Cohn v. Petsmart, Inc., 281
14
F.3d 837, 840 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm’n,
15
432 U.S. 333, 347 (1977)). And in unlawful-detainer actions, the title to the property
16
is not the object of the litigation—only the right to possession. See Evans v. Super.
17
Ct., 67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977). The amount in controversy in an unlawful-
18
detainer action is therefore determined by the amount of damages sought in the
19
complaint, not by the value of the subject property. Id.
20
This is also not the first time Badio has tried to remove this case. The Court
21
promptly remanded this case after Badio’s first removal attempt. RAC Dev., Inc. v.
22
Badio, No. 2:13-cv-5739-ODW(AJWx), ECF No. 4 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 8, 2013). A
23
party may not file a second notice of removal based on the same grounds as its first
24
notice of removal where the court remanded the party’s first removal. St. Paul & C.
25
Ry. Co. v. McLean, 108 U.S. 212, 217 (1883); see Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d
26
927, 948 (9th Cir. 2001). The Court hereby warns Badio that filing a third notice of
27
removal on the same grounds would be a violation of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
28
2
1
11(b)(2) and would subject her to $1,000 in sanctions or other sanctions in the Court’s
2
discretion.
3
4
The Court therefore finds that it lacks jurisdiction and REMANDS this case to
Los Angeles County Superior Court, case number 13P02233.
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
8
August 26, 2013
9
10
11
____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
]]>
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?
