Opinion
Case No. EDCV 11-01225 VAP (OPx)
08-19-2011
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION v. ALICIA DEL STANISLAUS, AND DOES 1 THROUGH X, INCLUSIVE
CIVIL MINUTES -- GENERAL
PRESENT: HONORABLE VIRGINIA A. PHILLIPS, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
Marva Dillard
Courtroom Deputy
None Present
Court Reporter
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
PLAINTIFFS:
None
ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR
DEFENDANTS:
None PROCEEDINGS: MINUTE ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO THE CALIFORNIA SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (IN CHAMBERS)
On June 9, 2011, Plaintiff Federal National Mortgage Association ("Plaintiff") filed a complaint for unlawful detainer ("Complaint") against Defendant Alicia del Stanislaus ("Defendant") in the Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino. (Not. of Removal at 26.) On August 2, 2011 Defendant removed the action on the basis of federal question and diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332. (See Not. of Removal at 2-3.)
Removal jurisdiction is governed by statute. See 28 U.S.C. §1441. The Ninth Circuit applies a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, ensuring "the
Initials of Deputy Clerk ____ md ____ defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Nishimoto v. Federman--Bachrach & Assocs., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)); see also In re Ford Motor Co./Citibank, 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) ("The party asserting federal jurisdiction bears the burden of proving the case is properly in federal court."). "If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); FW/PBS, Inc. v. Dallas, 493 U.S. 215, 231 (1990) ("federal courts are under an independent obligation to examine their own jurisdiction"); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) ("If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.")
Defendant alleges one basis for removal is federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, because the claims "arise under" of federal law. (See Not. of Removal at 2.) From the face of the Complaint, however, Plaintiff's only claim is for unlawful detainer, a California state law action. See Franchise Tax Bd. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust, 463 U.S. 1, 10 (1983) (defendant may not remove case to federal court unless basis for federal jurisdiction apparent on the face of the complaint). Accordingly, Defendants have not shown the Court's jurisdiction based on federal question under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
Defendant also claims removal is proper because the Court has diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (See Not. of Removal at 3.) Upon review of the Complaint and the Notice of Removal, however, the Court finds no basis for diversity jurisdiction in this case. Defendants do not explain how a case, filed by Plaintiff as one where damages are no more than $10,000, could be valued at $75,000 to meet the statutory requirements for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Defendant has not met her burden of establishing that the case is properly in federal court. Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS the action to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Bernardino.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Initials of Deputy Clerk ____ md ____