Opinion
CV 22-4835-DMG (JEMx)
07-22-2022
AMCAL Clarendon LLC v. Jaylar Abram, et al.
Present: The Honorable DOLLY M. GEE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
CIVIL MINUTES-GENERAL
Proceedings: [IN CHAMBERS] ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Sharia Abram's notice of removal from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. Notice of Removal [Doc # 1]. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this unlawful detainer action, the Court remands the matter to the Los Angeles County Superior Court.
I. Discussion
On July 14, 2022, Defendant filed a notice of removal and request to proceed in forma pauperis. She asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims against her under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332 (diversity jurisdiction) and 1343 (deprivation of civil rights). Notice of Removal at 2. The state court complaint alleges a claim of unlawful detainer, for an amount that does not exceed $10,000. Notice of Removal, Exh. 1 at 1.
The Court rules on the request to proceed in forma pauperis by separate order.
Page references herein are to the page numbers inserted by the CM/ECF system.
The Court must dismiss an action “at any time” if the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). For a removed case over which the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the Court must remand the matter to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). As the party seeking to remove the matter to federal court, Defendant bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 684 (9th Cir. 2006). Subject matter jurisdiction must be apparent from the face of the complaint and cannot be based on a claim raised as a defense or counterclaim. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987); Fifty Assocs. v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 446 F.2d 1187, 1189-90 (9th Cir. 1970); see Smith v. Grimm, 534 F.2d 1346, 1350 (9th Cir. 1976).
Defendant asserts alternative bases for the Court to exercise jurisdiction over this matter. Related to her argument that this matter falls within the Court's diversity jurisdiction, the complaint specifies on the caption page that the demand is less than $10,000. Notice of Removal, Exh. 1 at 1. Therefore, the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction because, among other things, the amount in controversy is less than $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1).
Related to her argument that this matter falls within 28 U.S.C. § 1343, that statute vests the Court with jurisdiction over the following matters:
(1) To recover damages for injury to [plaintiff's] person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42;
(2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent;
(3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States;
(4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.28 U.S.C. § 1343(a). Here, the complaint contains no allegations of violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985, deprivation of civil rights, or other matter listed in § 1343. Defendant appears to argue that the Court will have jurisdiction because she will suffer a violation of due process in state court, but the Court cannot exercise subject matter jurisdiction based on a defendant's speculative assertion of matters that are not alleged on the face of the complaint.
II. Conclusion
The Court REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.