(UD)(PS) TC Miramonte 1 LLC v. McNair ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TC MIRAMONTE 1 LLC, No. 2:24-cv-01409-DJC-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 DAMION MCNAIR and DOES 1 15 through 10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 18 19 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by Plaintiff 20 TC Miramonte 1 LLC against Defendants Damion McNair and Does 1 through 10. On 21 Friday, May 17, 2024, Defendant McNair filed a Notice of Removal in federal court, 22 seeking to remove the action from Sacramento County Superior Court. (See Not. of 23 Removal from Sacramento Cnty. Superior Ct. (ECF No. 1) (“Removal Not.”).) 24 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 25 removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United 26 Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The 27 removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. 28 Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); 1 Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2 2009). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the federal 3 courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting 4 jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris 5 USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). In addition, “the existence of federal 6 jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated 7 defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. 8 Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “The strong presumption against 9 removal jurisdiction” means that “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to 10 state court.” Hunter, 582 F.3d at 1042; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 11 1992). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed case “must be rejected if there is 12 any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Geographic Expeditions, 13 599 F.3d at 1107; Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); Gaus, 980 14 F.2d at 566. “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks 15 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); see 16 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). Remand under 28 U.S.C. 17 § 1447(c) “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA, 122 F.3d 1251, 1257 (9th 18 Cir. 1997); see also California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838 (9th 19 Cir. 2004). 20 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the 21 ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when 22 a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded 23 complaint.” California v. United States, 215 F.3d 1005, 1014 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation 24 omitted) (quoting Audette v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, 25 195 F.3d 1107, 1111 (9th Cir. 1999)); see also Dynegy, 375 F.3d at 838; Duncan, 76 26 F.3d at 1485. Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily 27 appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own claim in the bill or declaration, unaided 28 by anything in anticipation of avoidance of defenses which it is thought the defendant 1 may interpose.” California, 215 F.3d at 1014. Accordingly, “a case may not be 2 removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in the 3 plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense is the only 4 question truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Wayne v. 5 DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir. 2002); see also Vaden v. 6 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 70 (2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal 7 question lurks somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or 8 counterclaim, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under federal law.”). 9 Here, Defendant has not shown that removal of the action to this Court is 10 appropriate based on the presence of a federal question. Defendant invokes the 11 statute governing removal of cases involving the denial of a plaintiff’s civil rights, 28 12 U.S.C. § 1443. (See Removal Not. at 2.) However, Plaintiff brings a single, 13 straightforward unlawful detainer action claim against Defendants, which is a matter 14 purely of state law. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Zimmerman, No. 2:15-CV- 15 08268-CAS-RWX, 2015 WL 6948576, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (collecting cases 16 in which courts remanded the matter back to state court where the only claim alleged 17 was an unlawful detainer action). Defendant also cannot invoke a potential defense to 18 the unlawful detainer action sounding in a civil rights claim based on racial 19 discrimination to establish federal question jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, Inc., 482 U.S. 20 at 392; Wayne, 294 F.3d at 1183; ARCO, 213 F.3d at 1113. Therefore, Defendant has 21 failed to establish federal question jurisdiction. 22 Further, even though Defendant does not invoke diversity jurisdiction, it is clear 23 that the case does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement of $75,000. See 24 Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing 28 U.S.C. 25 § ``1332(a)). As an initial matter, the Sacramento County Superior Court Complaint 26 states that the case is a limited action that does not exceed $10,000. (See Removal 27 Not. at 8.) In determining the amount in controversy, courts first look to the complaint. 28 Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1197 (9th Cir. 2015). Generally, “the sum 1 claimed by the plaintiff controls if the claim is apparently made in good faith.” Id. 2 (quoting St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 289 (1938)). Even 3 assuming that Defendant established that Plaintiff did not make the damage 4 allegation in good faith, however, Defendant, as the removing party, has failed to 5 establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount in controversy 6 exceeded the jurisdictional threshold at the time of removal. See Canela, 971 F.3d at 7 849 (quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). 8 Based on the unlawful detainer complaint, the most this case could be worth is about 9 $27,000 based on the full market value of Defendant’s 12-month lease with Plaintiff. 10 (See Removal Not. at 9.) Thus, Defendant has failed to allege the minimum amount-in- 11 controversy to establish diversity jurisdiction. See Canela, 971 F.3d at 850. 12 Accordingly, the Court hereby REMANDS this case to Sacramento County 13 Superior Court for all future proceedings. This order resolves all pending motions. 14 15 Dated: May 20, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 DJC3 – McNair.24cv1409.remand.mot.UD.axn 22 23 24 25 26 27 28