Irvine Promenade Apts LLC v. Skyler Gist ( 2024 )

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) IRVINE PROMENADE APTS IV LLC, ) 13 ) Case No.: SACV 24-00243-CJC (ADSx) ) 14 ) Plaintiff, ) 15 ) v. ) 16 ) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO SKYLER GIST and DOES 1–5, ) REMAND CASE [Dkt. 7], DENYING 17 ) AS MOOT EX PARTE APPLICATION ) FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME 18 ) [Dkt. 8], AND DENYING AS MOOT Defendants. ) REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA 19 ) PAUPERIS [Dkt. 2] ) 20 ) ) 21 ) ) 22 23 I. INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 24 25 In September 2023, Plaintiff Irvine Promenade Apts IV LLC filed this unlawful 26 detainer action for nonpayment of rent in Orange County Superior Court against lessee- 27 Defendant Skyler Gist. (See Dkt. 7-1 at 1.) A month later, Neville Zepeda, Celine 1 themselves as defendants in the case. (Id.) In January 2024, acting pro se, Neville 2 Zepeda filed a Notice of Removal, purporting to remove the case on the basis of federal 3 diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Id. at 2; Dkt. 7-7 at 3.) The district court 4 remanded the case shortly thereafter, explaining there was no basis for federal 5 jurisdiction. (Dkt. 7-8 at 2.) Specifically, the court stated that because the underlying 6 complaint only alleges a claim for unlawful detainer under state law for failure to pay 7 rent there is no federal question jurisdiction, and because there is no citizenship diversity, 8 nor does the complaint allege an amount in controversy sufficient to meet the statutory 9 threshold of $75,000, there is no diversity jurisdiction. (Id.) 10 11 Eleven days after this case was remanded to state court, Penelope Hill, acting pro 12 se, again removed the case on the basis of federal diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 13 § 1332. (See Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter “Notice”] ¶ 5.) Hill also filed a 14 request to proceed in forma pauperis. (Dkt. 3.) Plaintiff filed a motion to remand and an 15 ex parte application for swifter consideration of that motion. (See Dkt. 7 [Mot. to 16 Remand, hereinafter “Mot.”]; Dkt. 8 [Ex Parte Appl.].) For the following reasons, 17 Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED, Plaintiff’s ex parte application for an order 18 shortening time is DENIED AS MOOT, and Hill’s request to proceed in forma pauperis 19 is DENIED AS MOOT.1 20 21 II. LEGAL STANDARD 22 23 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 24 if the federal court may exercise original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 25 § 1441(b). A federal court can assert subject matter jurisdiction over cases that involve 26 27 1 Having read and considered the papers, the Court finds this matter appropriate for disposition without a 1 questions arising under federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Additionally, federal district 2 courts have diversity jurisdiction over suits when over $75,000 is in controversy and the 3 citizenship of each plaintiff is different from that of each defendant. See 28 U.S.C. 4 § 1332(a). Principles of federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously 5 confine their [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” 6 See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). Indeed, 7 “[n]othing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United 8 States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). 9 The defendant removing the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that 10 the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is 11 strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 12 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right 13 of removal in the first instance.”). 14 15 III. DISCUSSION 16 17 Hill’s removal was obviously improper here. For one, Hill provides no indication 18 that the other defendants joined in removal. Without the consent of all defendants who 19 have been properly joined and served, the action must be remanded. See Force v. 20 Advanced Structural Techs., Inc., 2020 WL 4539026, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2020) 21 (“[A]ll properly named and served defendants must join a removal petition for the 22 petition to be valid.”). 23 24 Even if Hill had removed with the other defendants’ consent, removal would still 25 be improper because—as a federal district court has already explained in this exact 26 case—this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s 27 Complaint, which states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law, does 1 jurisdiction is also lacking. Hill and Plaintiff are both citizens of California, and the 2 Complaint demands less than $25,000 in damages. (Id.) Therefore, there is neither 3 complete diversity nor satisfaction of the amount-in-controversy requirement, as required 4 for this Court to have diversity jurisdiction over a case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332; (see Dkts. 5 7-3, 7-4.) 6 7 It appears Hill may assert that this is a proper civil rights removal, as she contends 8 that she “will not be able to receive a fair hearing or trial in the state Superior Court for 9 Orange County in that she will be denied due process because the Superior Court for 10 Orange County will ignore any evidence if there is a trustee’s deed upon sell, whether 11 valid or invalid, denying defendant an opportunity to be heard.” (Notice ¶ 11.) 28 12 U.S.C. § 1443(1) provides that a defendant may remove a civil action commenced in 13 state court if she “is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any 14 law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States[.]” The Supreme 15 Court has established a two-prong test to determine whether removal is proper under 16 § 1443(1). “First, it must appear that the right allegedly denied the removal petitioner 17 arises under a federal law ‘providing for specific civil rights stated in terms of racial 18 equality,’” rather than a constitutional or statutory provision of general applicability or 19 pursuant to a statute that does not protect specifically against racial discrimination. 20 Johnson v. Mississippi, 421 U.S. 213, 219 (1975) (citation omitted). “Second, it must 21 appear . . . that the removal petitioner is ‘denied or cannot enforce’ the specified federal 22 rights ‘in the courts of (the) State.’” Id. This “normally requires that the ‘denial be 23 manifest in a formal expression of state law,’ such as a state legislative or constitutional 24 provision, ‘rather than a denial first made manifest in the trial of the case.’” Id. (citations 25 omitted). Hill has failed to demonstrate this action falls within the ambit of 26 Section 1443(1). Her contention that she “will not be able to receive a fair hearing or 27 trial” in state court, (Notice ¶ 11), fails to identify a “federal law ‘providing for specific 1 || applicability, id., or “a California statute or constitutional provision that purports to 2 ||}command the state court to ignore [her] federal civil rights,” Wong v. Kracksmith, Inc., 3 || 764 F. App’x 583, 584 (9th Cir. 2019) (mem.). 4 5 Finally, Hill’s removal was untimely. A defendant must remove a civil case within 6 thirty days of being served. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)(1). Hill states that she was served with 7 summons and complaint on September 25, 2023, but she did not remove until 8 || February 5, 2024. 9 10 |} IV. CONCLUSION 11 12 For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs motion to remand is GRANTED, and this 13 || action is hereby REMANDED to Orange County Superior Court. Plaintiff's ex parte 14 || application for an order shortening time is DENIED AS MOOT. Hill’s request to 15 || proceed in forma pauperis is also DENIED AS MOOT. 16 17 The Court is troubled by the fact that this case has now been removed twice. The 18 || Court admonishes Defendants that all filings in federal court are subject to Federal Rule 19 || of Civil Procedure 11, which forbids presenting filings “for any improper purpose, such 20 |}as to... cause unnecessary delay” and authorizes sanctions for violations. If Defendants 21 anyone acting on their behalf attempts to improperly remove this case again, the Court 22 ||may be forced to impose appropriate monetary sanctions against them. 23 24 25 DATED: March 1, 2024 Lo fe 26 ff CTS 27 CORMAC J. CARNEY 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE