(UD)(PS) Wells Fargo Bank, National Assoc. v. Sherzad ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:22-cv-00820-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Atall Sherzad, et al., 1S Defendants. 16 17 Defendants Atall Sherzad and Mizhgan Alam, who appear pro se, removed this unlawful 18 | detainer action from the Superior Court of Shasta County. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. The 19 | court has reviewed the complaint and notice of removal and has determined on its own motion 20 | that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is thus remanded to the state 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, 556 3 | USS. 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 Bank of America alleges defendants are living unlawfully in a residential 11 | property plaintiff owns. See Compl. § 2, ECF No. 1 at 12-13. 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 1 (stating that “demand is less than $10,000). The court therefore lacks 15 | subject matter jurisdiction. 16 Defendants argue that this court has jurisdiction over the matter under both § 1331 and 17 | under § 1441 “because it is a civil action arising under federal law and in which a federal statute 18 | is drawn into controversy.” Not. Removal at 2. However, there are no federal claims or laws at 19 | issue and even if defendants asserted a defense based on federal law, which they do not, a 20 | defendant cannot create a federal question by asserting such a defense. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at 21 | 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 Shasta County. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. , / 27 DATED: May 20, 2022. Vu A xX 9g 28 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 45