UDR Pinebrook LP v. Candice Loving et al
Filing
3
ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney remanding case to Superior Court of Orange County Harbor Justice Center-Laguna Hills, Case number 30-2011 00493000. Case Terminated. Made JS-6 (Attachments: # 1 TRANSMITTAL) (rla)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
JS-6
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 11-01342-CJC(ANx)
Date: September 21, 2011
Title: UDR PINEBROOK, L.P. V. CANDICE LOVING
PRESENT:
HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Nancy Boehme
Deputy Clerk
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR PLAINTIFF:
None Present
N/A
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR DEFENDANT:
None Present
PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK
OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
Plaintiff UDR Pinebrook, L.P. filed this unlawful detainer action against
Defendant Candice Loving in the Superior Court for the County of Orange on July 22,
2011, related to the property at 1555 Mesa Verde Drive East, #46-G in Costa Mesa.
(Notice of Removal, Exh. A.) On July 29, 2011, Ms. Loving answered the Complaint.
(Notice of Removal, Exh. B.) On August 25, 2011, a writ of possession was issued,
which ordered Ms. Loving to vacate the premises by September 5, 2011. (Notice of
Removal, Exh. C.) On September 6, 2011, Ms. Loving removed the action to federal
court based on the civil rights removal statute and diversity jurisdiction. (Dkt. No. 1.)
A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district
court if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. §
1441(b). The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of
establishing that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the
removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980
F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt
as to the right of removal in the first instance.”) A federal court can assert subject matter
jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions arising under federal law or (2) are
between diverse parties and involve an amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Cases may also be removed to federal court if they are civil rights
cases within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1443. If it appears that the district court lacks
subject matter jurisdiction at any time prior to the entry of final judgment, the Court must
remand the action to state court. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No. SACV 11-01342-CJC(ANx)
Date: September 21, 2011
Page 2
This case appears to be a straightforward action for unlawful detainer, a state-law
claim, brought against a California resident. Nevertheless, Ms. Loving asserts that she
was denied due process because she was evicted after foreclosure and therefore is entitled
to removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). (See Notice of Removal, at 2-3.) Section 1443
provides that a civil action “[a]gainst 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” may be removed to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1443(a). However,
the only facts Ms. Loving alleges are that there is no landlord/tenant relationship between
the parties because, although Plaintiff claims that title to the property was extinguished
by foreclosure and subsequent Trustee’s sale, Plaintiff was not a bona fide purchaser.
(Notice of Removal, at 3.) Ms. Loving further claims that she was “stonewalled” when
trying to bring this fact to the court’s attention. (Id.) But Ms. Loving has not submitted
any evidence that Plaintiff was not the bona fide purchased or provided any specifics
about how she was “stonewalled.” These facts do not tend to show that the California
state court deprived Ms. Loving of her constitutional rights.
Ms. Loving further attempts to invoke diversity jurisdiction. In the Cover Sheet to
her Notice of Removal, Ms. Loving has indicated that the basis of jurisdiction is
diversity. However, Ms. Loving has neither offered any evidence to establish diversity of
citizenship nor any evidence that the case exceeds $75,000. In fact, Ms. Loving checked
on the Cover Sheet that both parties are citizens of California. Plaintiff’s Complaint also
states on its face that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. (Notice of
Removal, Exh. A.) The only challenge Ms. Loving offers is her statement, in uncertain
terms, that the amount in controversy “includes up to, but is not limited to, an actuary
exceeding $75,000.” (Notice of Removal, at 3.) Even if this conclusory statement is
accepted at face value, Ms. Loving does not show that the jurisdictional amount
necessarily exceeds $75,000. Thus, there is no basis for diversity jurisdiction.1
Therefore, the Court, on its own motion, hereby REMANDS this action to state
court because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
jwp
MINUTES FORM 11
CIVIL-GEN
1
Initials of Deputy Clerk nkb
The Court further notes that Ms. Loving’s removal papers are defective and incomplete. Ms.
Loving has not attached the full Complaint and the proof of service is unsigned.
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?