Hermosa Village Phase 1 Housing Partners, L.P. v. Lauren Esther Dieguez De Leon

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 23, 2024
• Docket: 8:24-cv-00075
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

JS-6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION

11 HERMOSA VILLAGE PHASE 1 ) Case No.: SACV 24-00075-CJC (KESx) ) 12 HOUSING PARTNERS, L.P., ) ) 13 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING 14 ) CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT v. ) MATTER JURISDICTION 15 ) ) 16 LAUREN ESTHER DIEGUEZ DE ) LEON and DOES 1-10, inclusive, ) 17 ) ) 18 Defendant. ) ) 19 ) 20 Plaintiff Hermosa Village Phase 1 Housing Partners, L.P. filed this unlawful 21 detainer action against Defendant Lauren Esther Dieguez De Leon in state court on 22 August 10, 2023. (See Dkt. 1 [Notice of Removal, hereinafter “NOR”], Ex. A 23 [Complaint].) Defendant, acting pro se, removed the case to this Court on January 12, 24 2024. (Id.) 25

26 A defendant may remove a civil action filed in state court to a federal district court 27 if the federal court would have had original jurisdiction over the action. 28 U.S.C. 1 § 1441. Federal courts have a duty to examine their subject matter jurisdiction whether 2 or not the parties raise the issue. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed, 3 Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 966 (9th Cir. 2004) (“[A] district court’s duty to establish subject 4 matter jurisdiction is not contingent upon the parties’ arguments.”). They have subject 5 matter jurisdiction over cases that (1) involve questions arising under federal law or 6 (2) are between diverse parties and involve an amount in controversy that exceeds 7 $75,000. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. Principles of federalism and judicial economy 8 require courts to “scrupulously confine their [removal] jurisdiction to the precise limits 9 which [Congress] has defined.” See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 10 109 (1941). Indeed, “[n]othing is to be more jealously guarded by a court than its 11 jurisdiction.” See United States v. Ceja-Prado, 333 F.3d 1046, 1051 (9th Cir. 2003) 12 (internal quotations omitted). The defendant removing the action to federal court bears 13 the burden of establishing that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction, and the 14 removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 15 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt 16 as to the right of removal in the first instance.”). A “court may—indeed must—remand 17 an action sua sponte if it determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction.” GFD, LLC 18 v. Carter, 2012 WL 5830079, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2012). 19 20 It is clear that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff’s 21 Complaint states a single claim for unlawful detainer under California law. (Dkt. 1, Ex. 22 A.) It does not include any claim “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 23 United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S. Ct. 24 1743, 1748 (2019). Defendant contends that the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 25 2009 makes the case removeable, (NOR at 2–5), but her potential defenses or 26 counterclaims against Plaintiff are not enough to invoke this Court’s subject matter 27 jurisdiction. See Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 1 based on counterclaims); ARCO Envtl. Remediation, L.L.C. v. Dept. of Health and Envitl. 2 || Quality, 213 F.3d 1108, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he existence of federal jurisdiction 3 ||depends solely on the plaintiffs claims for relief and not on anticipated defenses to those 4 ||claims.”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (similar). 5 6 Diversity jurisdiction is also lacking. Diversity jurisdiction exists “where the 7 ||matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and 8 ||costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount in controversy requirement is not met in this 9 || case because the Complaint demands less than $10,000 in damages. (Dkt. 1, Ex. A at 3.) 10 11 Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this case to Orange County 12 || Superior Court. 13 14 DATED: — January 23, 2024 jee fe 15 ff OTS 16 CORMAC J. CARNEY 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28