(PS) THR California, L.P. v. Taylor, et al., No. 2:2014cv01457 - Document 4 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 6/19/14 RECOMMENDING that this case be remanded to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. Referred to Judge John A. Mendez. Objections due within 14 days. (Manzer, C)

Download PDF

(PS) THR California, L.P. v. Taylor, et al. Doc. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THR CALIFORNIA L.P., 12 13 14 15 No. 2:14-cv-1457-MCE-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS STEVE TAYLOR and MARIA G. TAYLOR, Defendants. 16 17 18 This case is before the undersigned in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Eastern 19 District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). On June 18, 2014, defendants, proceeding pro se, 20 filed a notice of removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the State of 21 California for the County of San Joaquin.1 ECF No. 1. 22 This court has an independent duty to ascertain its jurisdiction and may remand sua sponte 23 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). “The burden of establishing 24 federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed 25 against removal jurisdiction.” Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 26 27 28 1 Also on June 18, 2014, defendants filed applications to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. ECF Nos. 2, 3. However, in light of the recommendation herein that this action be remand for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, defendants’ requests to proceed in forma pauperis will not be addressed. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 1988). “Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the 2 first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). As explained below, 3 defendants have failed to meet that burden. 4 Defendants claims that this court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 5 ECF No. 1 at 2. Defendants contend that diversity of citizenship is present because plaintiff is a 6 citizen of Texas and defendants are citizens of California. Id. Even if this is true, plaintiff has 7 not shown that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Diversity jurisdiction requires 8 complete diversity of citizenship among the parties, as well as a minimum amount in controversy 9 of over $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The amount in controversy is determined from the 10 complaint itself, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is worth a different amount 11 than that pled by plaintiff. Horton v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 354 (1961); 12 Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). The complaint alleges 13 that that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000. ECF No. 1 at 8; see also Fed. Home 14 Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Cantillano, 2012 WL 1193613, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012) (“The 15 appropriate dollar amount in determining the amount of controversy in unlawful detainer actions 16 is the rental value of the property, not the value of the property as a whole.”); Fed. Home Loan 17 Mortg. Corp. v. Pulido, 2012 WL 540554 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2012) (“In unlawful detainer 18 actions, the right to possession is contested, not title to the property, and plaintiffs may collect 19 only damages that are incident to that unlawful possession.”). Consequently, because defendants 20 have failed to demonstrate to a legal certainty that the amount in controversy requirement is met, 21 the court lacks diversity jurisdiction over the action. 22 Nor have defendants established that this court has federal question jurisdiction. The 23 compliant does not allege any federal claims; instead, the complaint alleges only unlawful 24 detainer under state law. ECF No. 1 at 6-10. The presence or absence of federal question 25 jurisdiction “is governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 26 jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly 27 pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). This is the case 28 where the complaint “establishes either that [1] federal law creates the cause of action or that [2] 2 1 the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on resolution of a substantial question of federal 2 law.” Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. An Exclusive Gas Storage Leasehold & 3 Easement, 524 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers 4 Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 27-28 (1983)). Here, plaintiff’s one cause of action is for unlawful 5 detainer under state law, and under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant’s claims or 6 defenses may not serve as a basis for removal. See Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 7 815, 822 (9th Cir. 1985). 8 9 Therefore, because defendants have not adequately established a basis for this court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the case must be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that the above-captioned case be 11 REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San 12 Joaquin. 13 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 14 assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 15 after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 16 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 17 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 18 shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. Failure to file 19 objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. 20 Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1157 (9th 21 Cir. 1991). 22 DATED: June 19, 2014. 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.