US Bank National Association v. Nehad Ayyoub et al
Filing
5
MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER by Judge Percy Anderson: Defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that federal subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to the San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No. UDRS1103036. ( Case Terminated. Made JS-6 ) Court Reporter: Not Reported. (Attachments: # 1 CV-103 Remand Transmittal Letter) (gk)
<![CDATA[
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 12-0656 PA (MRWx)
Title
U.S. Bank National Association v. Nehad Ayyoub, et al.
Present: The
Honorable
Date
May 10, 2012
PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Paul Songco
Not Reported
N/A
Deputy Clerk
Court Reporter
Tape No.
Attorneys Present for Plaintiff:
Attorneys Present for Defendants:
None
None
Proceedings:
IN CHAMBERS - COURT ORDER
The Court is in receipt of a Notice of Removal filed by Nehad Ayyoub (“Defendant”). Plaintiff
U.S. Bank National Association (“Plaintiff”) filed its Complaint in the San Bernardino County Superior
Court asserting a single cause of action for unlawful detainer. Defendant, who is appearing pro se,
asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of 28 U.S.C. § 1443, which provides
that district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to redress civil
rights violations. Defendant also invokes the Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters
authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.
375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 1675, 128 L. Ed. 2d 391 (1994). A “strong presumption” against removal
jurisdiction exists. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). In seeking removal, the
defendant bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th
Cir. 1986).
I.
Civil Rights Jurisdiction
A defendant “who is denied or cannot enforce” his or her civil rights in state court may remove a
civil action or criminal prosecution to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Section 1443(1) was enacted “to
remove from state courts groundless charges not supported by sufficient evidence when these charges
are based on race and deny one his federally protected equal rights as guaranteed by Title II of the 1964
Civil Rights Act.” Walker v. Georgia, 417 F.2d 5, 9 (5th Cir. 1969). Section 1443 provides, in
pertinent part, “Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court
may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the
courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United
States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1).
A petition for removal under § 1443(1) must satisfy the two-part test
articulated by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. Rachel, 384 U.S. 780,
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 1 of 3
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 12-0656 PA (MRWx)
Date
Title
May 10, 2012
U.S. Bank National Association v. Nehad Ayyoub, et al.
788–92, 794–804, 86 S. Ct. 1783, 16 L. Ed. 2d 925 (1966) and City of
Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808, 824–28, 86 S. Ct. 1800, 16
L. Ed. 2d 944 (1966). “First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to
the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory
enactment protecting equal racial civil rights.” California v. Sandoval,
434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970). “Second, petitioners must assert that
the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation must be
supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that
purports to command the state courts to ignore the federal rights.” Id.
Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2006). Defendant does not allege any facts that
would support removal under § 1443 and therefore Defendant meets neither part of the Supreme Court’s
test in Georgia v. Rachel. There are no allegations or any other indication that Defendant has properly
sought to invoke a law that provides “for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States,” or that
he is unable to pursue such a claim or that the state court is unable or unwilling to enforce such a claim.
Nothing in Defendant’s allegations concerning the asserted deficiencies in California’s unlawful
detainer procedures “command[s] the state courts to ignore” Defendant’s federal rights. See Patel, 446
F.3d at 998–99; see, also, US Bank, N.A., v. Medina, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43054, at *5 (C.D. Cal.
March 27, 2012) (denying removal under section 1443 of unlawful detainer action where defendant
asserted that “California Civil Code procedures authorizing non-judicial foreclosures and judicial
evictions violate [federal rights]”). Therefore, the Notice of Removal’s allegations are insufficient to
establish the Court’s jurisdiction under § 1443.
II.
Diversity Jurisdiction
Defendant has also failed to show that diversity jurisdiction exists over this action. Subject
matter jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship requires all plaintiffs to have different citizenship
from all defendants and that the amount in controversy exceed $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; Owen
Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373, 98 S. Ct. 2396, 2402, 57 L. Ed. 2d 274 (1978).
Although Defendant alleges that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the caption of the
Complaint clearly states that the “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000.” In unlawful detainer
actions, the title to the property is not involved — only the right to possession. Evans v. Superior Court,
67 Cal. App. 3d 162, 170 (1977). As such, the amount in controversy is determined by the amount of
damages sought in the Complaint, rather than the value of the subject real property. Id. Here, Plaintiff
alleges in the prayer of the Complaint that it is only seeking possession of the premises, costs of suit,
and $50 per day from the expiration of the Notice to Quit until it obtains a judgment. Thus, given that
the amount of the note is not in controversy, Defendant has failed to show that this action meets the
minimum jurisdictional requirement.
Conclusion
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 2 of 3
JS-6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.
ED CV 12-0656 PA (MRWx)
Title
Date
May 10, 2012
U.S. Bank National Association v. Nehad Ayyoub, et al.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant has failed to meet his burden of showing that federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists over this action. Accordingly, because the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, this action is hereby remanded to the San Bernardino Superior Court, Case No.
UDRS1103036. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
CV-90 (06/04)
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Page 3 of 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?
