From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Guiang v. Garcia

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 3, 2014
CV 14-3904-UA (DUTYx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2014)

Opinion


ERLINDA GUIANG, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL GARCIA, et al., Defendants. No. CV 14-3904-UA (DUTYx). United States District Court, C.D. California. June 3, 2014.

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY-REMOVED ACTION

GEORGE H. KING, District Judge.

The Court will remand this unlawful detainer action to state court summarily because defendant removed it improperly.

On May 21, 2014, defendant Samuel Garcia, having been sued in what appears to be a routine unlawful detainer action in California Superior Court, lodged 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 latter application under separate cover because the action was not properly removed. To prevent the action from remaining in jurisdictional limbo, the Court issues this Order to remand the action to state court.

Simply stated, 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). Here, defendant has asserted both federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction as his bases for removal. But the unlawful detainer action to be removed does not actually raise any federal legal question. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1441; Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 808, 106 S.Ct. 3229, 92 L.Ed.2d 650 (1986) ("the question for removal jurisdiction must... be determined by reference to the well-pleaded complaint'"). Further, even if complete diversity of citizenship exists, the amount in controversy does not exceed the diversity jurisdiction threshold of $75,000, contrary to defendant's contention in the Notice of Removal. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441. Indeed, the unlawful detainer complaint asserts that the amount in controversy does not exceed $10,000.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) this matter be REMANDED to the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County, Long Beach Judicial District, 275 Magnolia Avenue, Long Beach, CA 90802, 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.


Summaries of

Guiang v. Garcia

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California
Jun 3, 2014
CV 14-3904-UA (DUTYx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2014)
Case details for

Guiang v. Garcia

Case Details

Full title:ERLINDA GUIANG, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL GARCIA, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Jun 3, 2014

Citations

CV 14-3904-UA (DUTYx) (C.D. Cal. Jun. 3, 2014)