Leo Katz v. Jonathan Pezzola

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: May 24, 2022
• Docket: 2:22-cv-03183
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:22-cv-03183-CAS-MAR Document 8 Filed 05/24/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:21

JS-6 1 2

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 LEO KATZ, Case No. 2:22-cv-03183-CAS-MARx 11 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING APPLICATION TO 12 v. PROCEED IN DISTRICT COURT WITHOUT PREPAYING FEES OR 13 COSTS JONATHAN PEZZOLA ET AL., 14 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 On December 1, 2021, Plaintiff Leo Katz (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 20 detainer action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against defendants Jonathan 21 Pezzola and Does 1-10. ECF Docket No. (“Dkt.”) 1 at 1, 4–9. Plaintiff appears to 22 assert that the defendants have failed to vacate the property after being served a 23 notice to quit and now seeks costs and damages. Id. 24 On April 28, 2022, Defendant Beniamino Cattaneo filed a Notice of Removal, 25 invoking the Court’s federal question jurisdiction. Id. at 1–3. Defendant also filed an 26 Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. Dkt. 2. 27 /// 28 /// Case 2:22-cv-03183-CAS-MAR Document 8 Filed 05/24/22 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:22

1 II. 2 DISCUSSION 3 A. APPLICABLE LAW 4 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 5 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 6 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). It is this Court’s duty 7 to always examine its own subject matter jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 8 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 9 obvious jurisdictional issue. Scholastic Ent., Inc. v. Fox Ent. Grp., Inc., 336 F.3d 982, 10 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 11 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 12 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 13 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 14 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 15 792 F.2d 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 16 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 17 B. ANALYSIS 18 Defendant asserts that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 19 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 and 1441. Dkt. 1 at 1–2. Section 1441 (“section 1441”) provides, 20 in relevant part, that a defendant may remove to federal court a civil action in state 21 court of which the federal court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 22 Section 1332(a) provides, in relevant part, that federal “district courts shall have 23 original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the 24 sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ... citizens of 25 different states.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The burden is on Defendant to establish 26 diversity of citizenship and that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 27 Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. “[W]hen a state-court complaint affirmatively alleges that the 28 amount in controversy is less than the jurisdictional threshold, the party seeking 2 Case 2:22-cv-03183-CAS-MAR Document 8 Filed 05/24/22 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:23

1 removal must prove with legal certainty that [the] jurisdictional amount is met.” 2 GMAC Mortgage, LLC v. Martinez, No. CV 10-02882 MMM (PLAx), 2010 WL 3 1931268, at *4 (C.D. Cal. May 10, 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting 4 Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007)). 5 Here, the Complaint seeks past due rent totaling $65,945.00. Dkt. 1 at 7. 6 Based on the amount sought by Plaintiff, the jurisdictional amount is not met. 7 Because the state court complaint affirmatively alleges that the amount in controversy 8 is less than the jurisdictional threshold, Defendant must prove with legal certainty that 9 the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. In unlawful detainer actions, “the 10 damages are limited to the rental value of the property during the period of unlawful 11 possession.” Nationstar Mortgage LLC v. Stolte, Case No. 13-cv-05539-JCS, 2014 12 WL 1153336, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 14, 2014) (citation omitted). Defendant has 13 provided no facts to support that the rental value of the property at issue during the 14 period of allegedly unlawful possession exceeds $75,000. To the extent Defendant 15 claims that the amount in controversy is met because of any purported counterclaims, 16 “[t]he amount of a counterclaim may not be considered in determining the amount in 17 controversy.” Mesa Indus. Inc. v. Eaglebrook Products, Inc., 980 F. Supp. 323, 326 18 (D. Ariz. 1997); see also Guaranty Holdings, Inc. of California v. Dufresne, 1:19-cv- 19 00355-LJO-BAM, 2019 WL 1306929, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2019) (amount in 20 controversy is determined without regard to counterclaim). Because Defendant fails 21 to show that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, Defendant fails to meet his 22 burden to establish that diversity jurisdiction exists. 23 Although Defendant does not explicitly invoke the Court’s federal question 24 jurisdiction, to the extent Defendant argues there is federal question jurisdiction, 25 there is no federal question apparent from the Notice of Removal or attached 26 exhibits; the underlying Complaint appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer 27 cause of action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203-GAF (SSx), 28 2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action 3 Case] 2:22-cv-03183-CAS-MAR Document 8 Filed 05/24/22 Page4of4 Page ID#:24

1 | does not arise under federal law.’’) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 2 | Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 3 | 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction where 4 | plaintiff's complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). Furthermore, to the 5 | extent Defendant argues there is federal question jurisdiction based on any 6 | counterclaims or affirmative defenses, it is well settled that a “case may not be 7 | removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense .. . even if the defense is 8 | anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint, and even if both parties concede that the 9 | federal defense is the only question truly at issue.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 10 | 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987). Furthermore, a case may not be removed based on a 11 | federal defense or counterclaim. See id. at 393; Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 12 | 59, 129 S. Ct. 1262, 173 L. Ed. 2d 206 (2009) (finding federal jurisdiction cannot rest 13 | upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim). Thus, to the extent Defendant’s defenses 14 | to the unlawful detainer action or any counter claims are based on alleged violations 15 | of federal law, those defenses do not provide a basis for federal question jurisdiction. 16 | See id. Defendant therefore fails to meet his burden to show that federal question 17 | jurisdiction exists. 18 III. 19 CONCLUSION 20 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the 21 | Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Application to Proceed in 23 | District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs is DENIED as moot. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: May 24, 2022 dniihia I bug he 38 ~ HONORABLE CHRISTINA A. SNYDER United States District Court Judge