Opinion
CV 22-409-DMG (MRWx)
02-04-2022
Museum Center, LLC v. Eric Mankin, 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
On January 20, 2022, pro se Defendant Eric Mankin removed this action from the Los Angeles County Superior Court to federal court. [Doc. # 1.] Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. See Notice of Removal (“NOR”) [Doc. # 1].
Federal question jurisdiction exists over all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. “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 burden of establishing federal subject matter jurisdiction falls on the party invoking removal.” Marin v. Gen. Hosp. v. Modesto & Empire Traction Co., 581 F.3d 941, 944 (9th Cir. 2009).
Defendant asserts federal question jurisdiction with the following statement: “Plaintiff has asserted claims arising out of a residential lease agreement, which said lease agreement was investigated and determined to not be authentic, which gives claims to fraud and a violation of the federal statute of frauds, and a potential violation of 18 USC section 1001.” Section 1001 is a criminal statute that does not create a civil cause of action, and Defendant appears to assert it as a defense, not as the basis for Plaintiff's Complaint. Federal jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 129 S.Ct. 1262, 1272 (2009).
Moreover, though Defendant attaches only the cover page of Plaintiff's Complaint, it is evident that subject matter jurisdiction does not exist. See NOR, Ex. 1. The Complaint is for unlawful detainer, which arises entirely under state law.
Furthermore, the case does not give rise to diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, because the parties are not citizens of different states. In addition, the caption indicates that 1 Plaintiff seeks less than $10,000, which is less than the $75,000 amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a).
Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Los Angeles County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED. 2