Meadowbrook Housing Partners, LP v. Thompson

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MEADOWBROOK HOUSING Case No.: 23-CV-1592 TWR (KSC) PARTNERS, LP, 12 ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING Plaintiff, 13 ACTION TO THE SUPERIOR v. COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY 14 OF SAN DIEGO MAVIS THOMPSON and SHAKAIJAH 15 CALVIN, (ECF No. 1) 16 Defendants. 17 18 On September 5, 2023, the Court ordered Defendant Aadhya Ali El1 to show cause 19 why this action should not be remanded to the Superior Court of California, County of San 20 Diego, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. (See ECF No. 4, “OSC.”) The Court warned 21 Defendant that if she failed to show that the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction, the Court 22 would remand this action to the Superior Court of California. (Id. at 3.)2 Defendant 23 Aadhya Ali El timely responded on September 19, 2023. (ECF No. 5, “Resp.”) After 24 25 1 Defendant Aadhya Ali El, who was previously named Mavis Thompson, identifies as a Moorish 26 American National. (See ECF No. 5 at 9–12.) Defendant Thompson will be referred to as Aadhya Ali El throughout this Order. 27 2 Throughout this Order, pin citations refer to the CM/ECF page numbers stamped at the top of each 28 1 careful consideration of Defendant’s Response, Plaintiff Meadowbrook Housing Partners, 2 LP’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-2, “Compl.”), and the relevant law, the Court sua sponte 3 REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. 4 BACKGROUND 5 On June 28, 2023, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer action in the Superior Court 6 of California, County of San Diego, seeking to evict Defendants Aadhya Ali El and 7 Shakaijah Calvin from a property located in San Diego, California, and to collect past rent 8 due and damages. (See Compl. at 1, 3–4.) On August 30, 2023, Defendant Aadhya Ali El 9 filed a notice of removal, asserting this Court has federal-question jurisdiction because the 10 case implicates constitutional concerns. (See ECF No. 1, “NOR”); see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 11 Given the nature of this case as an unlawful detainer action grounded in state law, 12 the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be remanded to the 13 Superior Court of California for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, noting that a case may 14 not be removed based on a federal defense. (See generally OSC.) Defendant Aadhya Ali 15 El timely filed a Response to the Court’s Order. (See generally Resp.) 16 LEGAL STANDARD 17 As explained in the Court’s Order to Show Cause, “this court has an independent 18 obligation to address sua sponte whether [it] ha[s] subject matter jurisdiction.” Allstate 19 Ins. Co. v. Hughes, 358 F.3d 1089, 1093 (9th Cir. 2004); see 28 U.S.C.§ 1447(c) (“If at 20 any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 21 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court 22 determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the 23 action.”). “The right of removal is entirely a creature of statute and ‘a suit commenced in 24 a state court must remain there until cause is shown for its transfer under some act of 25 Congress.’” Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28, 32 (2002) (citation 26 omitted). A suit filed in state court may be removed to federal court if the federal court 27 would have had original jurisdiction over the suit. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 28 / / / 1 “Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. They possess only that power 2 authorized by Constitution and statute.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 3 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). Removal is proper when a case originally filed in state court presents 4 a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or where there is diversity of citizenship among 5 the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The 6 party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing that federal subject- 7 matter jurisdiction exists, see Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 8 1988), and courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” Gaus 9 v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must 10 be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. 11 ANALYSIS 12 Defendant Aadhya Ali El asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant 13 to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because she is a Moorish American National and, as a result, Plaintiff 14 is a foreign corporation. (See Resp. at 6.) She also asserts this Court has federal-question 15 jurisdiction because Plaintiff’s attempts to evict Defendants and recover past rent due 16 violated her Fifth Amendment due process rights and certain rights to privacy under the 17 Fourteenth Amendment. (See id. at 6–7.) Despite Defendant’s assertions, the Court lacks 18 both diversity and federal-question jurisdiction here. 19 As for diversity jurisdiction, Defendant Aadhya Ali El’s identification as a Moorish 20 American National says nothing about her state citizenship or Plaintiff’s citizenship as 21 discussed in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. And there is no evidence that the amount in controversy 22 exceeds $75,000. Instead, Plaintiff seeks approximately $11,000 in alleged delinquent 23 rent. (See Compl. at 18.) The Court thus lacks diversity jurisdiction over this action. 24 As for federal-question jurisdiction, no claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint deal with a 25 federal question. Instead, this unlawful detainer action is grounded in state law. See Ralph 26 Partners II, LLC v. Tate, No. 18-CV-03030-LB, 2018 WL 3213974, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 27 1, 2018) (“Unlawful-detainer claims do not arise under federal law.”). In addition, a “case 28 may not be removed to federal court on the basis of a federal defense.” Caterpillar Inc. v. 1 || Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 393 (1987) (emphasis omitted). To the extent Defendant Aadhya 2 || Ali El seeks to avoid eviction and paying past rent due based on alleged constitutional 3 || violations, her federal defenses do not provide this Court with federal-question jurisdiction. 4 || Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County 5 San Diego. 6 CONCLUSION 7 For the foregoing reasons, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the 8 Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 9 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. 11 ||Dated: September 22, 2023 —_—— 12 | (2 □□□ 13 Honorable Todd W. Robinson United States District Judge 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28