(UD)(PS) Capital Equity Management Group, Inc. v. Nguyen ( 2019 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CAPITAL EQUITY MANAGEMENT No. 2:19-cv-01548-KJM-EFB GROUP, INC., 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER v. 14 SEN VAN NGUYEN, et al., 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On August 12, 2019, defendant Lawrence Monteforte, proceeding pro se, removed 19 this unlawful detainer action from San Joaquin County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Monteforte 20 also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. On August 16, 2019, plaintiff filed 21 an ex parte application to remand. ECF No. 5. As explained below, the court REMANDS the 22 case to the San Joaquin County Superior Court and DENIES as moot defendant’s motion to 23 proceed in forma pauperis. 24 I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 25 A. Legal Standard 26 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 27 jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 1 question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 2 § 1332. 3 Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil 4 actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 5 Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when 6 the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 7 Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction 8 cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 9 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 10 Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the 11 amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. 12 § 1332. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in 13 controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount 14 in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 15 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 16 A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 17 established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it 18 appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded . . . .”); 19 Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (“The burden of establishing 20 federal jurisdiction is upon the party seeking removal . . . .”) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & 21 Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 22 B. Discussion 23 Monteforte’s Notice of Removal asserts the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 24 § 1443 because “San Joaquin Superior Court consistently violates the people’s right to due 25 process guaranteed under the United States Constitution.” Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1, at 1, 5. 26 This appears to be an argument for removal under § 1443(1)1. “A petition for removal under 27 1 “Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court 28 may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and 1 § 1443(1) must satisfy the two-part test articulated by the Supreme Court in Georgia v. 2 Rachel, 384 U.S. 780, 788–92, 794–804 (1966) and City of Greenwood, Miss. v. Peacock, 384 3 U.S. 808, 824–28 (1966)”: 4 First, the petitioners must assert, as a defense to the prosecution, rights that are given to them by explicit statutory enactment 5 protecting equal racial civil rights. Second, petitioners must assert that the state courts will not enforce that right, and that allegation 6 must be supported by reference to a state statute or a constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the 7 federal rights. 8 Patel v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d 996, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal quotation marks omitted) 9 (quoting California v. Sandoval, 434 F.2d 635, 636 (9th Cir. 1970)). 10 Monteforte alleges that “[t]he State Court Judges Bench Guide state [sic]: 11 ‘Because of its summary character, an unlawful detainer action is not a suitable vehicle for trying 12 complicated ownership issues involving allegations of fraud.[’] . . . Asuncion v[.] Superior Court 13 (1980) 108 CA 3d 141, 145–146, CR 306 (eviction of homeowners following foreclosure raise 14 due process issues and cannot be heard as part of summary unlawful detainer proceeding).” Not. 15 of Removal at 5–6 (italics added) (other citations omitted). Furthermore, Monteforte states “[t]he 16 San Joaquin County Courts have removed all court reporters from the Unlawful Detainer room. 17 The Courts are fully aware that whatever is raised or objected to cannot be heard or ruled on in 18 the Appellate courts, because it is hearsay.” Id. at 6. Monteforte does not assert as a defense any 19 rights given by “explicit statutory enactment protecting equal racial civil rights” nor does he say 20 the State court will not enforce any such right based on a statute or constitutional provision. Patel 21 v. Del Taco, Inc., 446 F.3d at 998–99; see also Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 22 1195 (9th Cir. 1988)) (removal statute strictly construed against removal jurisdiction and burden 23 of establishing such jurisdiction falls to party seeking removal). Accordingly, the court does not 24 have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. 25 26 division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) Against 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 27 of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). 28 1 Neither does the court appear to have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint 2 seeks possession of the premises, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and damages of $83.33 per 3 day for each day from April 22, 2019 until the date of judgment. ECF No. 1 at 16. Monteforte 4 has alleged plaintiff purchased the property in question for $347,192.85, Not. of Removal at 3, 5 but the value of the property does not determine amount in controversy here. “In unlawful 6 detainer actions, the amount of damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real 7 property, determines the amount in controversy,” and, under California law, “an unlawful 8 detainer is a limited civil action where the ‘whole amount of damages claimed’ must be ‘twenty- 9 five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less.’” Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Schoux, No. 14-CV- 10 02026-NJV, 2014 WL 12607803, at *1 (N.D. Cal. June 9, 2014) (quoting Wells Fargo Bank N.A. 11 v. Alvarado, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28225, *5 (N.D. Cal. March 4, 2014)) (citing Cal. Code Civ. 12 P. § 86(a)(4)); see also Nationstar Mortg. LLC v. Stolte, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19128, *7 (Feb. 13 14, 2014) (“[C]ourts have found that the amount in controversy requirement is not met 14 in unlawful detainer actions that are filed in the superior court where it is designated on the face 15 of the complaint that the case is one of ‘limited civil jurisdiction’ involving less than $10,000 in 16 controversy.”) (citations omitted). Because the damages alleged are not likely to total more than 17 $75,000, the court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction over the action. 18 Accordingly, the court REMANDS the case to San Joaquin County Superior 19 Court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district 20 court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 21 II. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND EX PARTE APPLICATION TO REMAND 22 23 For the foregoing reasons, the court has determined sua sponte it lacks subject 24 matter jurisdiction, and thus remands the case to the San Joaquin County Superior Court. Cf. 25 Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a case should be 26 remanded to state court.”). As a result, defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis status and 27 plaintiff’s ex parte application to remand are moot. 28 1 III. CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to San Joaquin County 3 Superior Court, defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot, and 4 plaintiff’s ex parte application to remand is DENIED as moot. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 DATED: September 20, 2019. 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28