DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP v. Exum ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP, Case No. 24-cv-02552-TLT 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 v. REMAND: SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 10 JESSY EXUM, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, NO. CUD24673910 Defendant. 11 ECF 13 12 Before the Court is the Application by Plaintiff DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP, for an 13 Order Remanding Action or Shortening Time For Hearing on Motion to Remand Action to State 14 Court filed May 3, 2024. (ECF 13) Plaintiff has also scheduled a Motion to Remand this Action 15 set for hearing on July 16, 2024. (ECF 12) 16 As noted in Defendant’s May 7, 2024, Opposition (ECF 14), Plaintiff’s Application is 17 procedurally and substantively defective. Plaintiff’s Application is therefore denied, without 18 prejudice, as to the substantive Motion to Remand. 19 The hearing scheduled for July 16, 2024 is hereby vacated. 20 For the reasons noted below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to state court for 21 lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 22 I. BACKGROUND 23 The action before the Court is for an unlawful detainer based on non-payment of rent. 24 Defendant’s removal was close to two months after Plaintiff served the Defendant with the 25 complaint. More importantly, the Notice for Removal was filed on April 29, 2024, four court days 26 prior to the scheduled trial set for Monday, May 6, 2024. 27 Finally, the amount of the controversy ranges from $3,506.56 to $4,223.23, absent costs 1 and attorney fees. 2 II. LEGAL STANDARD 3 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of 4 Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “Subject matter jurisdiction ‘can never be forfeited or waived’ 5 and federal courts have a continuing ‘independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter 6 jurisdiction exists.’” Leeson v. Transamerica Disability Income Plan, 671 F.3d 969, 975, n.12 7 (9th Cir. 2012) (internal citations omitted). “The objection that a federal court lacks subject- 8 matter jurisdiction, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 12(b)(1), may be raised by a party, or by a court on its 9 own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment.” Arbaugh 10 v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006). 11 The party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Provincial 12 Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). Where the 13 complaint does not specify the amount in controversy and it is unclear whether the plaintiff is 14 seeking more than the jurisdictional minimum, “the defendant bears the burden of actually proving 15 the facts to support jurisdiction, including the jurisdictional amount” by a preponderance of the 16 evidence. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992). “The removal statute is 17 strictly construed, and any doubt about the right of removal requires resolution in favor of 18 remand.” Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc., 553 F.3d 1241, 1244 (9th Cir. 2009); 28 U.S.C. 19 § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject 20 matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”). 21 The request for remand is untimely, the amount in controversy is below the jurisdictional 22 threshold, and the subject matter is solely based upon state law. 23 24 // 25 26 // 27 Wl. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Defendant, Jessy Exum and Does 1-5, 2 inclusive, have failed to establish subject matter jurisdiction and remands the case to state court 3 forthwith. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: May 4, 2024 6 7 8 am fy fon 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28