(UD) (PS) Cobrae v. Cobrae ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARREN COBRAE, No. 2:23-cv-01015-DJC-AC 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 JOHN COBRAE, 15 Defendant. 16 17 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by Plaintiff 18 Darren Cobrae against Defendant John Cobrae. It was originally filed in El Dorado 19 County Superior Court. On Tuesday, May 30, 2023, Defendant filed a Notice of 20 Removal with this Court, seeking to remove an action from Solano County Superior 21 Court. (Notice of Removal (ECF No. 1).) 22 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 23 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 24 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 25 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 26 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); 27 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 28 2009). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal 1 courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 2 jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris 3 USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal 4 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated 5 defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. 6 Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “The strong presumption against 7 removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to 8 state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 9 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is 10 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 11 599 F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 12 F.2d at 566. “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks 13 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see 14 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. 15 § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th 16 Cir. 1997); see also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th 17 Cir. 2004). 18 The District Court has jurisdiction over actions between citizens of different 19 states where the amount in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds 20 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). However, 28 U.S.C. § 1441 states that “[a] civil action 21 otherwise removable solely on the basis of the jurisdiction under section 1332(a) of 22 this title may not be removed if any of the parties in interest properly joined and 23 served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.” Thus, a 24 defendant seeking to remove solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction may not do so 25 when the action was brought in the state in which any defendant is domiciled. See 26 also Singh v. Segovia, No. 2:21-cv-02160-TLN-DB, 2021 WL 5966231, at *2 (E.D. Cal. 27 Nov. 24, 2021). 28 //// 1 Defendant removed this action solely on the basis of diversity jurisdiction under 2 | U.S.C. § 1332(a). (ECF No. 1 at 1.) However, Defendant states that he is domiciled 3 | in California (id.) and this action was originally brought in California state court (ECF 4 | No. 1-2 at 2). As such, Defendant may not remove this action solely on the basis of 5 | diversity jurisdiction as the action was originally brought in the state where Defendant 6 | is domiciled. This action therefore must be remanded to the El Dorado County 7 | Superior Court as the removal was improper. See Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d 8 |} at 1107. 9 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to El! Dorado County 10 | Superior Court for all future proceedings. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 | Dated: _May 31, 2023 Bek | Cbabeatin.. Hon. Daniel labretta 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25, || DJC1-cobrae23cv01015.remand 26 27 28