Santo Tomas, LLC v. Roberson

Full title: SANTO TOMAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DAMONS LEWIS ROBERSON, Defendant.

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

Date published: Aug 7, 2015

CV 15-5666-AB (PJWx) (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2015)

Opinion

SANTO TOMAS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. DAMONS LEWIS ROBERSON, Defendant. No. CV 15-5666-AB (PJWx) United States District Court, C.D. California. August 7, 2015

ORDER SUMMARILY REMANDING IMPROPERLY REMOVED ACTION TO LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

ANDRE BIROTTE, Jr., District Judge.

Before the Court is an unlawful detainer action that Defendant Damon Lewis Roberson removed from the Los Angeles County Superior Court. For the following reasons, the case is summarily remanded back to that court.

On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff Santo Tomas, LLC filed an unlawful detainer action in the Los Angeles County Superior Court in Santa Monica, claiming that Defendant Roberson owed $2,550 in past-due rent. On July 27, 2015, Defendant removed the action to this court, arguing that there was federal question jurisdiction because the resolution of the action turns on questions of federal law under the Protecting Tenants at Foreclosure Act of 2009.

Generally speaking, federal district courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over unlawful detainer actions like this one because they are grounded in state, not federal, law and do not become federal cases when a defendant raises a federal question as an affirmative defense or counterclaim. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) ("Federal jurisdiction cannot be predicated on an actual or anticipated defense... [or] rest upon an actual or anticipated counterclaim.") (internal citations omitted). Further, it is clear from the face of the Complaint that there is no diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because, even if Defendant could establish diversity, the amount in controversy is less than $10,000. As a result, Defendant's removal of the action was improper and the case will be remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a); see also Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 567 (9th Cir. 1992).

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that (1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), this case is REMANDED to the Los Angeles County Superior Court, 1725 Main Street, Santa Monica, CA; (2) the clerk shall send a certified copy of this Order to the state court; and (3) the clerk shall serve copies of the Order on the parties.

IT IS SO ORDERED.