(UD)(PS) Canniffe v. Johnson ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 | Tadhg Canniffe, No. 2:22-cv-01470-KJM-CKD 11 Plaintiff, ORDER 12 v. 13 Ruth Johnson, et al., 4 Defendants. 15 16 Defendants Ruth Johnson and Rebecca Gomez, who appear pro se, removed this unlawful 17 | detainer action from the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento. See Not. Removal, ECF 18 | No. 1. The court has reviewed the complaint and notice of removal and has determined on its 19 | own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is thus remanded to the state 20 | court. 21 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is 22 | initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 23 | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction 24 | under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 25 First, under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions 26 | arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under 27 | the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the 28 | plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” 1 | Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction 2 | cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 3 | 49, 60 (2009). 4 Second, under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the 5 | amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are completely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 6 | “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the 7 | removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy 8 | meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 9 | 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 10 Here, plaintiff Tadhg Canniffe alleges defendants are living unlawfully in a residential 11 | property plaintiff owns. See Compl. 2-9, ECF No. 1 at 6-8. Plaintiff asserts one state law 12 | claim for unlawful detainer and no federal claims. See generally id. The parties are not diverse, 13 | and no allegations in the complaint suggest the amount in controversy is greater than 14 | $75,000. See id. at 6 (stating that “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000”). The court 15 | therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 16 Defendants argue that this court has jurisdiction over the matter under both § 1331 and 17 | under § 1441 “because Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of 18 | Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff's duties under federal law.” Not. Removal at 2. However, there 19 | are no federal claims or laws at issue and even if defendants asserted a defense based on federal 20 | law, which they do not, a defendant cannot create a federal question by asserting such a defense. 21 | See Vaden, 556 US. at 60. 22 A federal district court may remand a case on its own motion where a defendant has not 23 | established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 24 | 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 25 | This action is thus remanded to the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 DATED: August 25, 2022. ( / Wu LA / / Q / 28 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45