900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC v. Tacius Payne

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: February 28, 2024
• Docket: 2:24-cv-01088
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. CV 24-1088-GW-JPRx Date February 28, 2024 Title _900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC v. Tacius Payne_ Page _1 of 2 Present: The Honorable GEORGE H. WU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Javier Gonzalez None Present Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s) Attorneys Present for Defendant(s) None Present None Present Proceedings: INCHAMBERS —- ORDER REMANDING CASE BACK TO STATE COURT

On February 8, 2024, pro per defendant Tacius Payne (“Defendant”) removed this unlawful detainer action to federal court from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. See Notice of Removal (“NOR”), Docket No. 1. Because subject matter jurisdiction is lacking here, the Court will forthwith remand the matter to state court. See Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (providing a party with an opportunity to respond when a court dismisses a case on the merits is not necessary when dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction). Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s obligation to consider its subject matter jurisdiction in every case before it. See Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006). The party attempting to remove an action from state to federal court bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Durham v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 445 F.3d 1247, 1252 (9th Cir. 2006). A removed action must be remanded to state court if the federal court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447. Defendant appears to assert — or at least Defendant’s NOR (see Docket No. 1) may be understood as asserting — that this action may be removed to federal court because this Court would have original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction). In order to remove a case to federal court based on federal question jurisdiction, the federal question must appear on the face of the plaintiff's complaint. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (“Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense.”); Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 831 (2002) (“A counterclaim . . . cannot serve as the basis for ‘arising under’ [federal] jurisdiction.”); Caterpillar, CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk JG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Case No. _CV 24-1088-GW-JPRx Date February 28, 2024 Title 900 South Figueroa Street Apartments Investors LLC v. Tacius Payne Page _2 of 2 Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987) (“[FJederal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint.”). The Complaint in this action presents only an unlawful detaimer claim based on the California Code of Civil Procedure, and therefore does not present a federal question. See Bank of Am., Nat’! Ass’n v. German, Case No.: 19-cv-0969-GPC(KSC), 2019 WL 2353630, at *2 (S.D. Cal. June 4, 2019) (“Because this complaint contains only a state unlawful detainer action, no federal question is presented.”). Any rights based in federal law that Defendant believes he has by way of a defense or a basis for a counterclaim does not give this Court original jurisdiction over Plaintiff's unlawful detainer case. Additionally, to the extent Defendant is attempting to assert that this Court has original jurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction), this argument also fails. With respect to diversity jurisdiction, there must be complete diversity of citizenship between the parties on opposing sides and the amount in controversy must be in excess of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a); Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). Defendant has not alleged the complete citizenship of Plaintiff or of Defendant and, hence, there is no basis to find a complete diversity of citizenship. Likewise, Defendant has not established the amount in controversy. In unlawful detainer actions, the amount in controversy is the daily rental value of the property, as alleged in the Complaint. See, e.g., 21st Mortg. Corp. v. Jackson, No. 2:16-cv-07439-CAS (AFMx), 2016 WL 7477536, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 28, 2016) (“In unlawful detainer actions, California courts have noted that the right to possession alone [is] involved, — not title to the property . ... Therefore, the amount of damages sought in the complaint, not the value of the subject real property, determines the amount in controversy.” [citation and internal quotation marks omitted]). Here, Plaintiff seeks damages in the sum of $6,386.00 for past rent and $106.43 per day for the period from the expiration of the notice to quit and the entry of judgment. See Complaint. Further, the Complaint provides that the amount of damages demanded “does not exceed $10,000.00.” See id. Obviously, that amount, as of the time of removal, falls far below the necessary $75,000.01 required for diversity jurisdiction. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that there is no subject matter jurisdiction over the present litigation and the action is forthwith remanded to the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles.

CV-90 CIVIL MINUTES—GENERAL Initials of Deputy Clerk JG