Opinion
CASE NO. 13-CV-2430 BEN (WMc)
2013-10-15
COLLEGE TERRACE, Plaintiff, v. SARAH M. GUZMAN and DOES 1 to X, Inclusive, Defendants.
ORDER REMANDING
ACTION TO STATE COURT
FOR LACK OF SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION
This action is an unlawful detainer action initially filed in the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego. The Complaint, dated September 16, 2013, alleges that Plaintiff College Terrace has title to real property located at 5844 Ascot St. # 1 and at 5815 Ascot St. Garage #3, San Diego. Plaintiff alleges it served Defendant Sarah Guzman with written notice to pay rent or quit the property on September 6, 2013. Plaintiff seeks past-due rent in the amount of $1,245, reasonable attorney's fees, forfeiture of the rental agreement, and damages at the rate of $41,50 per day from October 1, 2013 for each day that Defendant remains in possession of the property through entry of judgment. Defendant was served with the summons on September 18, 2013. On October 9, 2013, Defendant removed the action to this Court.
Congress has authorized a defendant to remove a civil action from state court to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, the removing party "always has the burden of establishing that removal was proper." Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). The district court must remand any case previously removed from a state court "if at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). Moreover, there is a strong presumption against removal jurisdiction; doubts as to whether the federal court has subject matter jurisdiction must be resolved in favor of remand. See Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996); see also Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566 ("Federal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance."). A defense based on federal law is not sufficient to remove an action to federal court. Berg v. Leason, 32 F.3d 422, 426 (9th Cir. 1994) ("[N]either an affirmative defense based on federal law . . . nor one based on federal preemption . . . renders an action brought in state court removable.").
This Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over the present action. Because the Complaint does not allege violation of any federal law, this Court does not have federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1331 ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."). In addition, because the Complaint seeks less than $10,000 in damages, this Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) ("The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different States.").
This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
____________
HON. ROGER T. BENITEZ
United States District Court Judge