Thus, it is clear the amount in controversy is much less than the $75,000 threshold required for diversity jurisdiction. See Signet Doman, LLC v. Aintablian, 2012 WL 5512388 at *1 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 14, 2012) (in unlawful detainer action, only possession is at issue, not title, and thus the amount in controversy is the amount sought in the complaint, not the value of the property). Therefore, even assuming the parties to be diverse (which the notice of removal does not allege), the Court cannot exercise diversity jurisdiction.

That complaint identifies Boyd-Malone as Barr's lessee. It is therefore clear that ownership of the house is at stake only in Barr, and not in this case. See Signet Doman, LLC v. Aintablian, 2012 WL 5512388 at *1 (C.D.Cal., Nov. 14, 2012) (in unlawful detainer action, only possession is at issue, not title, and thus the amount in controversy is the amount sought in the complaint, not the value of the property). The Court also notes that, in spite of Boyd-Malone's representations to the contrary, the unlawful detainer complaint pleads an amount in controversy less than $10,000.