(UD)(PS)Arbor Pointe, LLC v. Strong ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ARBOR POINTE, LLC, No. 2:20-cv-00115-KJM-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LINDA STRONG, 15 Defendant. 16 17 18 On January 15, 2020, defendant Linda Strong, proceeding pro se, removed this 19 unlawful detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Strong also filed 20 a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. As explained below, the court REMANDS 21 the case to the Sacramento Superior Court and DENIES as moot defendant’s motion to proceed in 22 forma pauperis. 23 I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 24 A. Legal Standard 25 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 26 jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 27 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 28 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) (citing Wilson v. Republic 20 Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 21 B. Discussion 22 Strong’s Notice of Removal asserts the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 23 § 1331 because “the complaint alleges non-payment of rents which is an out an [sic] out 24 falsehood and t5he [sic] complaint was filed in retaliation for Defendant exercising her 25 constitutional rights to petition the government for redress of grievances[.]” Not. of Removal ¶ 3, 26 ECF No. 1. The complaint plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, 27 which is a matter of state law. See Not. of Removal at 8. 28 1 As explained above, Strong’s answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for 2 federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint and 3 may, as here, “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy Hill 4 Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint is not based upon 5 federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action. 6 Neither does the court appear to have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s complaint 7 seeks “restitution” of the premises, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, past-due rent of 8 $1,535.00, forfeiture of the lease agreement, and damages of $51.17 per day for each day from 9 October 31, 2019 until possession of the premises is obtained. Not. of Removal at 9. Because 10 these damages are not likely to total more than $75,000, and Strong has provided no other 11 evidence or allegations as to the amount in controversy, the court cannot exercise diversity 12 jurisdiction over the action. 13 Accordingly, the court REMANDS the case to Sacramento County Superior Court. 14 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court 15 lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded . . . .”). 16 II. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 17 For the foregoing reasons, the court has determined sua sponte that it appears to 18 lack subject matter jurisdiction, and thus remands the case to the Sacramento County Superior 19 Court. Cf. Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a 20 case should be remanded to state court.”). As a result, defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis 21 status is moot. 22 III. CONCLUSION 23 For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to Sacramento County 24 Superior Court, and defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 DATED: January 21, 2020. 27 28