Swami International Inc v. Kennedy Mims

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-00175
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JS-6 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SWAMI INTERNATIONAL INC., Case No. CV 20-00175-ODW(RAO) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER REMANDING ACTION AND DENYING REQUEST TO 14 KENNEDY MIMS, et al., PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 15 Defendants. 16 17 I. 18 FACTUAL BACKGROUND 19 Plaintiff Swami International Inc. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer 20 action in Los Angeles County Superior Court against Defendants Kennedy Mims, 21 Taylor Smith, and Saeeda Mims (“Defendants”). Notice of Removal and Attached 22 Complaint (“Compl.”), Dkt. No. 1 at 3-8. Defendants are allegedly occupants of real 23 property located in Inglewood, California. Compl. ¶¶ 1-6. Plaintiff is allegedly an 24 agent authorized by the owner of the real property “to enter into contracts [and] file 25 lawsuits in agents name.” Id. at ¶ 4. Plaintiff filed the unlawful detainer action 26 seeking forfeiture of the rental agreement, monetary damages, and reasonable 27 attorney fees. Id. at ¶ 17. 28 1 Defendants filed a Notice of Removal on January 7, 2020, invoking the Court’s 2 diversity jurisdiction and Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notice of 3 Removal, Dkt. No. 1 at 2. Each Defendant also filed a request to proceed in forma 4 pauperis. Dkt. Nos. 3, 4, 5. 5 II. 6 DISCUSSION 7 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter 8 jurisdiction only over matters authorized by the Constitution and statute. See, e.g., 9 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S. Ct. 1673, 128 L. Ed. 10 2d 391 (1994). It is this Court’s duty always to examine its own subject matter 11 jurisdiction, see Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514, 126 S. Ct. 1235, 163 L. 12 Ed. 2d 1097 (2006), and the Court may remand a case summarily if there is an 13 obvious jurisdictional issue. Cf. Scholastic Entm’t, Inc. v. Fox Entm’t Grp., Inc., 336 14 F.3d 982, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (“While a party is entitled to notice and an opportunity 15 to respond when a court contemplates dismissing a claim on the merits, it is not so 16 when the dismissal is for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”) (omitting internal 17 citations). A defendant attempting to remove an action from state to federal court 18 bears the burden of proving that jurisdiction exists. See Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 19 925, 927 (9th Cir. 1986). Further, a “strong presumption” against removal 20 jurisdiction exists. See Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992). 21 Here, the Court’s review of the Notice of Removal and attached Complaint 22 makes clear that this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the instant 23 matter. 24 First, Defendant asserts that this Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 25 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Notice of Removal at 2. Section 1332 provides that federal 26 “district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in 27 controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000,” and is between “citizens of 28 different States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. There is no basis for diversity jurisdiction 1 because the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction 2 threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). The amount in controversy is 3 determined from the complaint itself, unless it appears to a legal certainty that the 4 claim is worth a different amount than that pled in the complaint. Horton v. Liberty 5 Mut. Ins. Co., 367 U.S. 348, 354, 81 S.Ct. 1570, 6 L.Ed.2d 890 (1961); Lowdermilk 6 v. United States Bank Nat’l Assoc., 479 F.3d 994, 999 (9th Cir. 2007). Defendants 7 allege that the “damages as a result of an unfair eviction will exceed” the 8 jurisdictional limit. Notice of Removal at 2. In filing the action, Plaintiff alleges that 9 the amount demanded “does not exceed $10,000.00.” See Compl. at 1. Because the 10 amount of damages that Plaintiff seeks appears to be below the jurisdictional 11 minimum, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction in this case. 12 Second, Defendant asserts that this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 11 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Notice of Removal at 2. “The central 14 purpose of Rule 11 is to deter baseless filings in district court and, thus, streamline 15 the administration and procedure of the federal courts.” Acosta v. City of Los 16 Angeles, No. CV 14-5641-R, 2014 WL 12564287, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 6, 2014). 17 “Rule 11 empowers federal courts to impose sanctions on the signer of a paper if the 18 paper is legally or factually baseless from an objective perspective, and the attorney 19 failed to conduct a reasonable and competent inquiry before filing.” Id. Rule 11 does 20 not provide the Court with jurisdiction over a claim. 21 Finally, the Court notes that there is no federal question apparent from the face 22 of the Complaint, which appears to allege only a simple unlawful detainer cause of 23 action. See Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 2010 WL 24 4916578, at *2 (C. D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010) (“An unlawful detainer action does not 25 arise under federal law.”) (citation omitted); IndyMac Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. 26 Ocampo, No. EDCV 09-2337-PA (DTBx), 2010 WL 234828, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 27 13, 2010) (remanding an action to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction 28 where plaintiff’s complaint contained only an unlawful detainer claim). 1 III. 2 CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that this case is REMANDED to the Superior 4 || Court of California, County of Los Angeles, forthwith. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ requests to proceed in forma 6 || pauperis and all other pending motions are DENIED as moot. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || DATED: _January 21, 2020 oes LB Cpt OTISD.WRIGHTT 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28