Opinion
Case No. 2:11-cv-08652-JHN-JEMx
12-19-2011
Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n v. Paulo De Sena et al
Present: The Honorable JACQUELINE H. NGUYEN
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦Alicia Mamer N ¦ot Reported ¦N/A ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Deputy Clerk ¦Court Reporter/Recorder ¦Tape No.¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:¦Attorneys Present for Defendants:¦ ¦ +---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------¦ ¦Not Present ¦Not Present ¦ ¦ +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Proceedings: ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO REMAND AND REMANDING CASE TO VENTURA COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT (In Chambers)
The matter before the Court is Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association's Motion to Remand. (Docket no. 7.) On May 19, 2011, Plaintiff brought a Complaint for unlawful detainer against Defendant Paulo De Sena ("Defendant") in state court. On October 19, 2011, Defendant removed the case to federal court. (Docket no. 1.) Having considered the Notice of Removal and Plaintiff's Motion to Remand, the Court finds no federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Motion and REMANDS the case to the Ventura County Superior Court. The hearing currently set on January 9, 2012 is vacated.
I. Discussion
Removal to federal court is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1441, which in relevant part states that "any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants . . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). However, the Court may remand a case to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). "The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party invoking federal jurisdiction." U.S. v. Marks, 530 F.3d 799, 810 (9th Cir. 2008).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the Court has original jurisdiction over civil actions "arising under" federal law. "The presence or absence of federal-question jurisdiction is governed by the 'well-pleaded complaint rule,' which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint." Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). The only exception to this rule is where plaintiff's federal claim has been disguised by "artful pleading," such as where the only claim is a federal one or is a state claim preempted by federal law. Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368, 1372 (9th Cir. 1987).
Here, although Defendant alleges that Plaintiff's claims arise under federal law, Plaintiff's only cause of action is for unlawful detainer in violation of California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(a). (Compl. 1.) No federal question is presented on the face of the Complaint. Therefore, no federal question jurisdiction exists.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the Court also has original jurisdiction over civil actions where there is complete diversity of citizenship and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Morris v. Princess Cruises, Inc., 236 F.3d 1061, 1067 (9th Cir. 2001). However, neither the Complaint nor the Notice of Removal alleges complete diversity of citizenship of the parties. Without an allegation as to citizenship, Defendant cannot meet his burden of establishing diversity. Moreover, the Complaint specifically alleges that the damages do not exceed $10,000. (Compl. 1.) For these reasons, no diversity jurisdiction exists.
II. Conclusion
Defendant has failed to meet his burden of establishing federal jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court hereby GRANTS the Motion to Remand and REMANDS this matter to the Ventura County Superior Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___: N/A
Initials of Preparer AM