From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Amaya v. Whitehead

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Feb 12, 2015
CV 15-909 BRO (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015)

Opinion


ELIZABETH AMAYA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE WHITEHEAD AND JEFFERY SCOTT, DOES 1 TO 10, Defendants. No. CV 15-909 BRO (FFMx) United States District Court, C.D. California. February 12, 2015

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING ACTION TO STATE COURT

BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge.

The Court will remand this action to state court summarily because Defendant removed it improperly.

On February 9, 2015, Defendant Shawna Chance, having been sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California state court (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 14R10086), filed a Notice of Removal of that action to this Court and also presented an application to proceed in forma pauperis.

The Court has denied the in forma pauperis application under separate cover because the Court lacks jurisdiction over the action. To prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.

Simply stated, as the Court has previously determined, Plaintiff could not have brought this action in federal court in the first place, in that Defendant does not competently allege facts supplying either diversity or federal-question jurisdiction, and therefore removal is improper. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see Exxon Mobil Corp v. Allapattah Svcs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546, 563, 125 S.Ct. 2611, 162 L.Ed.2d 502 (2005). Even if complete diversity of citizenship existed, the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity-jurisdiction threshold of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441(b). On the contrary, the unlawful-detainer complaint recites that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000.

Nor does Plaintiff's unlawful detainer action raise any federal legal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441(b).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Southwest District, 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, California 90401 for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); (2) that the Clerk send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) that the Clerk serve copies of this Order on the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Amaya v. Whitehead

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Feb 12, 2015
CV 15-909 BRO (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015)
Case details for

Amaya v. Whitehead

Case Details

Full title:ELIZABETH AMAYA, Plaintiff, v. CHRISTINE WHITEHEAD AND JEFFERY SCOTT, DOES…

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California

Date published: Feb 12, 2015

Citations

CV 15-909 BRO (FFMx) (C.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2015)