(UD)(PS) Sierra Park LP v. Moses

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: February 19, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-03457
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SIERRA PARK LP, No. 2:24-cv-03457-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING ACTION TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY 14 CHANEL MOSES, et al. SUPERIOR COURT 15 Defendants. 16 17 This is an unlawful detainer action under California law originally filed in the Sacramento 18 County Superior Court by Plaintiff Sierra Park LP against Defendants Chanel Moses, Herbert 19 Moses, and Tade Ajayi. (Doc. No. 1.) On December 13, 2024, Defendant Chanel Moses, 20 proceeding pro se, removed this case to this federal court. (Id.) 21 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action 22 sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell 23 & Reed, Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th Cir. 2004). The removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1441, is strictly 24 construed against removal jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 599 25 F.3d 1102, 1107 (9th Cir. 2010); Provincial Gov’t of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc., 582 F.3d 26 1083, 1087 (9th Cir. 2009). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited jurisdiction of the 27 federal courts and the burden of establishing jurisdiction rests with the party asserting it. 28 Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07; Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1 1042 (9th Cir. 2009). “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the district court lacks 2 subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Gibson v. Chrysler 3 Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 932 (9th Cir. 2001). 4 Defendant Chanel Moses’ notice of removal asserts the court has diversity jurisdiction 5 under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Federal district courts have original jurisdiction over 6 cases where there is complete diversity of citizenship, i.e., between citizens of different states, 7 and where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). But here, the 8 complaint was filed as a limited civil case and does not allege damages in excess of $75,000. 9 (Doc. No. 1 at 5.) Instead, the caption of the complaint expressly states that the amount demanded 10 does not exceed $10,000. (Id.); see 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(2) (providing the “sum demanded in 11 good faith in the initial pleading shall be deemed to be the amount in controversy . . .”). 12 “A defendant ‘bears the burden of actually proving the facts to support jurisdiction 13 including the jurisdictional amount.’” Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Herrera, No. 12-cv- 14 00403-LJO-MJS, 2012 WL 948412, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2012) (citing Sanchez v. 15 Monumental Life Ins., 102 F.3d 398, 403 (9th Cir.1996)). Here, Defendant Chanel Moses does 16 not establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and failed to submit any evidence to 17 meet her burden. (See Doc. No. 1.) As such, Defendant Chanel Moses has not established the 18 amount in controversy jurisdictional minimum required for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. 19 Thus, because the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, remand of this matter to the 20 Sacramento County Superior Court is appropriate and mandatory. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 21 ///// 22 ///// 23 ///// 24 ///// 25 ///// 26 ///// 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 For the reasons explained above, 2 1. This action is REMANDED to the Sacramento County Superior Court, pursuant to 3 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 4 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ g | Dated: _ February 18, 2025 EIU Os Dena Coggins 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28