DLGP Scripps Poway Apts, LLC v. Lightfoot

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: May 10, 2023
• Docket: 3:23-cv-00843
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DLGP SCRIPPS POWAY APTS, LLC, Case No. 23-cv-843-MMA (JLB)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: (1) SUA SPONTE 13 v. REMANDING ACTION FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 14 MALACHI LIGHTFOOT, et al., JURISDICTION; AND (2) DENYING 15 Defendants. AS MOOT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 16 PAUPERIS 17 [Doc. No. 2] 18 19 On May 8, 2023, Defendant Malachi Lightfoot, Nadia Stanley, and Monique Hill 20 (“Defendants”), proceeding pro se, filed a Notice of Removal in this unlawful detainer 21 action from the State of California, Superior Court for the County of San Diego, and 22 simultaneously filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Doc. Nos. 1, 2. For 23 the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to the San Diego 24 County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 25 LEGAL STANDARD 26 Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 27 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). Federal courts possess only that power authorized by 28 the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 1 541 (1986). The Court is constitutionally required to raise issues related to federal 2 subject matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better 3 Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93–94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v. Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 4 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, et 5 seq. A state court action can only be removed if it could have originally been brought in 6 federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Duncan v. 7 Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, for an action to be removed on the 8 basis of federal question jurisdiction, the complaint must establish either that federal law 9 creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s right to relief necessarily depends on the 10 resolution of substantial questions of federal law. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. 11 Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10–11 (1983). Additionally, 12 federal courts have jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states when 13 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 14 “The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking removal, 15 and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Nishimoto v. 16 Federman-Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). “Federal 17 jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first 18 instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Whether federal 19 jurisdiction exists is governed by the well-pleaded complaint rule. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. 20 at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule is a “powerful doctrine [that] severely limits the 21 number of cases in which state law ‘creates the cause of action’ that may be initiated in or 22 removed to federal district court . . . .” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 9–10. Under this 23 rule, the federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 24 pleaded complaint.” Id.; accord Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 25 (9th Cir. 2002). 26 DISCUSSION 27 Here, Defendants indicate in their removal papers that jurisdiction in this Court is 28 based on federal question jurisdiction. See Doc. No. 1 at 3. Liberally construing the 1 Notice of Removal, Plaintiff’s state court complaint does not present a federal question of 2 law that would provide this Court with jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. 3 § 1331. 4 First, there is no federal question apparent in the state action described in the 5 Notice of Removal, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of 6 action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 7 4916578, *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not arise 8 under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Ocampo, No. 9 EDCV 09-2337 PA(DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2010) 10 (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where plaintiff’s 11 complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 12 Second, there is no merit to Defendants’ contention that federal question 13 jurisdiction exists because Defendants’ anticipated defenses and counterclaims may raise 14 issues of federal law. Neither defenses nor counterclaims are considered in evaluating 15 whether a federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff’s complaint. Vaden v. 16 Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an 17 actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th 18 Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer jurisdiction on a 19 federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is anticipated in the 20 plaintiff’s complaint.”); Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393 (“[I]t is now settled law that a case 21 may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.”) (emphasis in 22 original). Accordingly, to the extent Defendants’ anticipated defenses and counterclaims 23 may be based on alleged violations of federal law, those defenses and counterclaims 24 cannot provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 25 Further, although not raised by Defendants, there is no diversity jurisdiction in this 26 matter. The Notice of Removal does not demonstrate that the amount in controversy 27 exceeds $75,000, and the face of the state court complaint cover sheet clearly 28 demonstrates that Plaintiff seeks damages in an amount less than $25,000. See Doc. 1 || No. 1-2 at 6. Moreover, Defendants, citizens of California, see Doc. No. 1-2 at 17, may 2 ||not properly remove this action based on diversity jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. 3 || § 1441(b), removal is permitted in diversity cases only when “none of the parties in 4 || interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such 5 || action is brought.” 6 CONCLUSION 7 Based on the foregoing, Defendants have not adequately established a basis for this 8 || Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this 9 action back to state court.'! See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). The Clerk of Court is instructed to 10 return the case to state court forthwith and close this action. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 || Dated: May 10, 2023

14 United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ motion to proceed IFP. See Doc. No. 2.