Jason Emer v. Nicole Spearman

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-cv-09682-CAS-PD Date December 20, 2021 Title Jason Emer v. Nicole Spearman et al

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER D. Rojas for Catherine Jeang Not Present N/A Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No. Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants: N/A N/A

Proceedings: (IN CHAMBERS) — ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Plaintiff Jason Emer owns a residence in Los Angeles, California (the “Premises”), and alleges that he leased the Premises to defendant Nicole Spearman on May 10, 2021. Dkt. 1, Ex. A (“Compl.”) §§ 10, 11. Thereafter, Nicole Spearman, while occupying the Premises, began to violate material terms of the parties’ lease agreement, including by changing the locks and failing to pay rent. Id. § 12. Accordingly, on August 16, 2021, plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action against Nicole Spearman in Los Angeles County Superior Court. Id. § 13. The Los Angeles County Superior Court issued a judgment for possession of the Premises in favor of Emer on or around September 20, 2021, and Nicole Spearman and additional unknown occupants were evicted from the Premises by sheriff's deputies on October 7, 2021. Id. 4 14-15. Thereafter, on October 29, 2021, plaintiff filed this subsequent action against Nicole Spearman, Armez Spearman, Carthell Sanders, and Does 1-30 in Los Angeles County Superior Court. See Compl. Plaintiff believes that, in addition to defendant Nicole Spearman, defendants Armez Spearman and Carthell Sanders resided at the Premises “some or all of the time between May 15, 2021, when Nicole Spearman took possession of the Premises, and October 7, 2021, when the eviction was carried out by the Sheriff.” Id. 17. Plaintiff alleges that, in violation of the terms of the lease, defendants smoked and allowed pets onto the Premises. Id. 9 12. Plaintiff alleges the following California state law claims: (1) rent and damages (civil code § 1951.2), against Nicole Spearman and Does 1-10; (2) fraud in the inducement / promissory fraud, against Nicole Spearman and Does 1-20; and (3) property damage, against Nicole Spearman, Armez Spearman, Carthell Sanders, and Does 1-30. Id. {J 18-46.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA TENTATIVE CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL Case No. 2:21-cv-09682-CAS-PD Date December 20, 2021 Title Jason Emer v. Nicole Spearman et al Defendant Nicole Spearman, appearing pro se, removed the action to this Court on December 3, 2021. Dkt. 1 (“Notice of Removal’). As an initial matter, the Notice of Removal appears to be defective because not all defendants have joined in the removal. Specifically, the Notice of Removal contains no indication that defendants Armez Spearman or Carthell Sanders join in the removal. See United Computer Sys.., Inc. v. AT&T Corp., 298 F.3d 756, 762 (9th Cir. 2002) (noting that “the usual rule is that all defendants in an action in a state court must join in a petition for removal’). Moreover, removal is proper only where federal courts have original jurisdiction over an action brought in state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), the federal courts have original jurisdiction over state law actions only where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the action is between parties of diverse citizenship. “Diversity jurisdiction requires complete diversity between the parties—each defendant must be a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” In re Digimare Corp. Derivative Litigation, 549 F.3d 1223, 1234 (9th Cir. 2008) (citations omitted). Here, although the complaint and Notice of Removal state that plaintiff is a California citizen and defendant Nicole Spearman is an Illinois citizen, the complaint alleges that Armez Spearman and Carthell Sanders are California citizens. See Compl. 3-4. Accordingly, the complaint indicates that complete diversity of citizenship does not exist, and that this Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Based on the foregoing, Nicole Spearman is hereby ORDERED to SHOW CAUSE, on or before January 24, 2021, why the instant action should not be remanded to Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Initials of DR Preparer