US Bank NA v. Francis Gonzalez ( 2019 )

1 JS-6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 ) 12 ) Case No.: CV 19-10283-CJC(JCx) ) 13 US BANK NA, ) ) 14 ) ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING Plaintiff, 15 ) CASE ) v. 16 ) ) 17 FRANCIS GONZALEZ, et al., ) ) 18 ) ) Defendants. 19 ) ) 20 21 22 Plaintiff filed this unlawful detainer action in state court in March 2019. (Dkt. 1 23 Ex. A.) Defendant Carmen Rodriguez, acting pro se, removed the case on December 4, 24 2019. 1 (Dkt. 1.) For the following reasons, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction 25 and hereby sua sponte REMANDS the case to Los Angeles Superior Court. 26 27 1 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 2 if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1441. Federal courts have subject matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve 4 questions arising under federal law or (2) are between diverse parties and involve an 5 amount in controversy that exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Principles of 6 federalism and judicial economy require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal] 7 jurisdiction to the precise limits which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & 8 Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 109 (1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more 9 jealously guarded by a court than its jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 10 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted). The defendant removing 11 the action to federal court bears the burden of establishing that the district court has 12 subject matter jurisdiction over the action, and the removal statute is strictly construed 13 against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) 14 (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in 15 the first instance.”). 16 17 It is clear that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s 18 Complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law. (Dkt. 1 Ex. 19 A.) The Complaint does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or 20 treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Defendant appears to claim that she has 21 claims under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act against the Plaintiffs. (Dkt. 1.) 22 However, “the existence of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims 23 for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, 24 L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envtl. Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000); see 25 Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a 26 state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a federal court.”). There are no federal 27 claims in Plaintiff’s complaint. l Diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the 2 ||matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 3 |Icosts.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount in controversy requirement has not been met 4 || because the complaint demands less than $10,000 in damages. (Dkt. 1 Ex. A.) This case 5 hereby REMANDED to Los Angeles Superior Court. 6 7 8 DATED: December 16, 2019 Jo / pe 9 / 10 CORMAC J. CARNEY 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28