(UD)(PS) Canniffe v. Johnson

Opinion

Tadhg Canniffe, No. 2:22-cv-01470-KJM-CKD Plaintiff, ORDER v. Ruth Johnson, et al., Defendants. Defendants Ruth Johnson and Rebecca Gomez, who appear pro se, removed this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. The court has reviewed the complaint and notice of removal and has determined on its own motion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is thus remanded to the state court. When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. First, under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].”

Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 49, 60 (2009). Second, under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are completely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam). Here, plaintiff Tadhg Canniffe alleges defendants are living unlawfully in a residential property plaintiff owns. See Compl. 2-9, ECF No. 1 at 6-8. Plaintiff asserts one state law claim for unlawful detainer and no federal claims. See generally id. The parties are not diverse, and no allegations in the complaint suggest the amount in controversy is greater than $75,000. See id. at 6 (stating that “amount demanded does not exceed $10,000”). The court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants argue that this court has jurisdiction over the matter under both § 1331 and under § 1441 “because Defendant’s Demurrer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff's duties under federal law.” Not. Removal at 2. However, there are no federal claims or laws at issue and even if defendants asserted a defense based on federal law, which they do not, a defendant cannot create a federal question by asserting such a defense. See Vaden, 556 US. at 60. A federal district court may remand a case on its own motion where a defendant has not established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). This action is thus remanded to the Superior Court of the County of Sacramento. DATED: August 25, 2022. ( / Wu LA / / Q / CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE