(UD)(PS) 1322 O St Investors LP v. Odrunia

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10 11 1322 O St Investors LP, No. 2:24-cv-01147-KJM-JDP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 Bernardita Odrunia, 1S Defendant. 16 17 Defendant Bernardita Odrunia, proceeding pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action 18 | from the Sacramento County Superior Court. Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1. Odrunia also filed 19 | a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot., ECF No. 2. For the reasons below, the court 20 | remands the matter to state court and denies the motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. 21 When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is 22 | initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). 23 | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question 24 | jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 25 Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions 26 | arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under 27 | the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the 28 | plaintiffs statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].”

1 | Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction 2 | cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 3 | 556 US. 49, 60 (2009). 4 Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the amount 5 | incontroversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 6 | “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the 7 | removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy 8 | meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 9 | 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). 10 Odrunia’s notice of removal does not explain the basis for this court’s jurisdiction. See 11 | generally Notice of Removal. Moreover, plaintiff's complaint filed in state court shows this court 12 | lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action. See State Ct. Compl., Notice of Removal at 6— 13 | 8.! First, plaintiff asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, which is a matter of state law. See 14 | id. Thus, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the action. See Valles v. Ivy 15 | Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[Plaintiff] may generally avoid federal 16 | jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.”). Second, both parties appear to be citizens of 17 | California and the amount in controversy is well below $75,000. See State Ct. Compl. Thus, the 18 | court does not have diversity jurisdiction over the action. See Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090. 19 | Accordingly, the case must be remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final 20 | judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be 21 | remanded.”). 22 Thus, the court remands this matter to the Sacramento County Superior Court. 23 | Odrunia’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot. 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. / 25 DATED: April 24, 2024. 2% CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

' When citing page numbers on filings, the court uses the pagination automatically generated by the CM/ECF system. 45