Westminster Special Needs Housing LP v. Essence Marie Nichols ( 2024 )

_____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: 8:24-cv-00333-FWS-ADS Date: February 28, 2024 Title: Westminster Special Needs Housing LP v. Essence Marie Nichols et al. Present: HONORABLE FRED W. SLAUGHTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Melissa H. Kunig N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff: Attorneys Present for Defendants: Not Present Not Present PROCEEDINGS: (IN CHAMBERS) ORDER REMANDING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISIDCTION AND DENYING AS MOOT APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS [2] AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REMAND [7] “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, possessing only that power authorized by Constitution and statute.” Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251, 256 (2013) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). When a suit originates in state court, a defendant may remove to federal court only when the suit could have been filed in federal court originally. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[T]he removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction,” and the party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. California ex rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing Ethridge v. Harbor House Rest., 861 F.2d 1389, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988)). “In civil cases, subject matter jurisdiction is generally conferred upon federal district courts either through diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, or federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” Peralta v. Hisp. Bus., Inc., 419 F.3d 1064, 1069 (9th Cir. 2005). _____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: 8:24-cv-00333-FWS-ADS Date: February 28, 2024 Title: Westminster Special Needs Housing LP v. Essence Marie Nichols et al. Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373 (1978) (“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different State from each plaintiff.”); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (“Jurisdiction founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1332 requires that the parties be in complete diversity and the amount in controversy exceed $75,000.”); Lee v. Am. Nat. Ins. Co., 260 F.3d 997, 1004 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The diversity jurisdiction statute, as construed for nearly 200 years, requires that to bring a diversity case in federal court against multiple defendants, each plaintiff must be diverse from each defendant.”). If a party is a partnership, limited liability company, or other unincorporated association, the court must consider the citizenship of each of the partners, including limited partners, or members, must be alleged. Carden v. Arkoma Assocs., 494 U.S. 185, 195-96 (1990); Johnson, 437 F.3d at 899. If a party is a corporation, the complaint must allege both its state(s) of incorporation and principal place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c); Harris v. Rand, 682 F.3d 846, 850 (9th Cir. 2012). If a party is a natural person, the complaint must allege their state of domicile, which is their permanent home, where they reside with the intention to remain or to which they intend to return. Ehrman v. Cox Commc’ns, Inc., 932 F.3d 1223, 1227 (9th Cir. 2019). Federal question jurisdiction refers the court’s original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under” the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. Negrete v. City of Oakland, 46 F.4th 811, 816 (9th Cir. 2022); 28 U.S.C. § 1331. A case “arises under” federal law when federal law creates the cause of action asserted or in limited circumstances where a state law claim presents a federal issue that is “(1) necessarily raised, (2) actually disputed, (3) substantial, and (4) capable of resolution in federal court without disrupting the federal-state balance approved by Congress.” Gunn, 568 U.S. at 257-58. “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) (citation omitted). Accordingly, federal question jurisdiction cannot be invoked based on an anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009). _____________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL Case No.: 8:24-cv-00333-FWS-ADS Date: February 28, 2024 Title: Westminster Special Needs Housing LP v. Essence Marie Nichols et al. Plaintiff purports to remove this case from state court based on federal question jurisdiction. (Dkt. 1 at 1-3.) However, the complaint in this case brings solely an unlawful detainer claim under state law in an amount that does not exceed $25,000. Accordingly, the court lacks diversity jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is insufficient, see, e.g., Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090, and lacks federal question jurisdiction because no claims pleaded in the complaint arise under federal law, see Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392; see also Vaden, 556 U.S. at 70. Because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the court REMANDS this case to California Superior Court, Orange County. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); 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.”) (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)). In light of this Order, the court DENIES AS MOOT Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Dkt. 2) and Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Remand Case (Dkt. 7). IT IS SO ORDERED.