Opinion
3:24-cv-00954-HZ
07-05-2024
CHRIS HAYES, Plaintiff, v. KRISTINA JOHNSON, and NICK JOHNSON, Defendants.
Chris Hayes Pro se Kristina & Nick Johnson Pro se
Chris Hayes Pro se
Kristina & Nick Johnson Pro se
OPINION & ORDER
MARCO A. HERNANDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff Chris Hayes removed this action to federal court. Because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case, it remands the case to the Clackamas County Circuit Court.
BACKGROUND
On March 7, 2024, Plaintiff sued Defendants in Clackamas County Circuit Court, alleging unjust enrichment and seeking $12,131.40 in damages. Notice of Removal 14-17, ECF 1. Defendants answered the complaint on June 3, 2024. Id. at 40-44. Defendants brought counterclaims for attorney fees and enhanced prevailing party fees under Oregon law, asserting that Plaintiff's claim had no objectively reasonable basis. Id. at 42-43. On June 14, 2024, Plaintiff removed the case to federal court.
STANDARDS
Subject to restrictions imposed by Congress, “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, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Sharma v. HSI Asset Loan Obligation Tr. 2007-1by Deutsche Bank Nat'l Tr. Co., 23 F.4th 1167, 1170 (9th Cir. 2022). Courts, therefore, “reject federal jurisdiction ‘if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.'” Martinez v. Am.'s Wholesale Lender, 764 Fed.Appx. 592, 592 (9th Cir. 2019) (quoting Gaus v.Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566-67 (9th Cir. 1992)). Because of the strong presumption against removal jurisdiction, “[a] ‘defendant seeking removal has the burden to establish that removal is proper.'” Sharma, 23 F.4th at 1169 (quoting Canela v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 971 F.3d 845, 849 (9th Cir. 2020)). In other words, the removing defendant must show that the district court has subject matter jurisdiction over the case.
“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). The party asserting jurisdiction bears the burden of proving that the court has subject matter jurisdiction over his or her claims. Id. In general, subject matter jurisdiction is based on either diversity of citizenship between the parties or a federal question. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332.
District courts have jurisdiction over civil cases in which the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the plaintiffs and defendants are citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1). There must be complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiffs and the defendants for the district court to have subject matter jurisdiction based on diversity. CaterpillarInc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61, 68 (1996). If the case was not originally filed in federal court, the requirements of complete diversity of citizenship and an amount in controversy exceeding $75,000 must be met at the time of removal. Chavez v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 888 F.3d 413, 415-17 (9th Cir. 2018).
District courts also have jurisdiction over civil cases in which the plaintiff's claims “aris[e] under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The plaintiff's complaint must state a cause of action arising under federal law; it is insufficient for a potential defense to the claim to be based on federal law. Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v.Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). If the case was not originally filed in federal court, the requirement of a cause of action arising under federal law must be met at the time of removal. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 481 U.S. 58, 63 (1987).
District courts may raise the question of subject matter jurisdiction at any time while the case is pending. Snell v. Cleveland, Inc., 316 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir. 2002). “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction” over a case that was removed to federal court, “the case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
DISCUSSION
The Court must remand this case to state court because removal was improper and the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff does not have the right to remove a case to federal court; only defendants to a civil case have that right. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). That Defendants brought counterclaims against Plaintiff in their answer does not give Plaintiff the right to remove to federal court. Home Depot U.S. A., Inc. v. Jackson, 139 S.Ct. 1743, 1748 (2019) (“Section 1441(a) thus does not permit removal based on counterclaims at all, as a counterclaim is irrelevant to whether the district court had ‘original jurisdiction' over the civil action. And because the ‘civil action ... of which the district cour[t]' must have ‘original jurisdiction' is the action as defined by the plaintiff's complaint, ‘the defendant' to that action is the defendant to that complaint, not a party named in a counterclaim.”).
The Court also lacks original jurisdiction over this case. Plaintiff's claim for unjust enrichment arises under state law, so there is no cause of action under federal law. And while it appears from Plaintiff's filings in state court that Plaintiff is a citizen of California and Defendants are citizens of Oregon, the amount in controversy is about $12,000, which is below the requirement to establish diversity jurisdiction. Even if Plaintiff had the right to remove to federal court, which he does not, removal would be improper because there is no subject matter jurisdiction. The Court remands this case to state court.
CONCLUSION
The Court REMANDS this matter to Clackamas County Circuit Court and DISMISSES this case.
IT IS SO ORDERED.