Opinion
2:24-cv-01579-KJM-AC
06-06-2024
Xiaoyan Fan, Plaintiff, v. Jacqueline Coleman, Defendant.
ORDER
Defendant Jacqueline Coleman removed this unlawful detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. Removal Notice, ECF No. 1. Coleman also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. Mot., ECF No. 2. For the reasons set forth below, the court remands the case to the Sacramento Superior Court and denies as moot the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
A. Legal Standard
When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.§ 1332.
Under § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law “only when the plaintiff's statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon [federal law].” Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009).
Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (per curiam).
A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded[.]”); Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)).
B. Discussion
Coleman asserts this court has federal question jurisdiction and removal is therefore proper. Removal Notice at 2. However, a review of the documents attached to the notice do not sufficiently establish this court has such jurisdiction. See Emrich, 846 F.2d at 1195 (“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is upon the party seeking removal” (citation omitted)). Coleman argues this court has federal question jurisdiction because this action arises under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and involves the deprivation of the right to secure housing without discrimination. Removal Notice at 2. However, Coleman's answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis for federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Additionally, while the removal notice does not provide clarity on the exact allegations in the complaint, it appears the complaint only sets forth an unlawful detainer claim, which is a matter of state law. Id. at 6; see PNC Bank Nat'l Ass'n v. Ahluwalia, No. 15-01264, 2015 WL 3866892, at *4 (N.D. Cal. June 22, 2015) (“Unlawful-detainer claims do not arise under federal law and, without more, the court lacks federal-question jurisdiction.”) (collecting cases). Finally, Coleman neither presents argument nor provides any evidence to show diversity jurisdiction exists.
Accordingly, because Coleman has not adequately established a basis for the court's subject matter jurisdiction, the court remands the case. See Emrich, 846 F.2d at 1195; 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
II. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS
Because the court has determined sua sponte it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and remands the case to the Sacramento County Superior Court, it denies Coleman's motion for in forma pauperis status as moot.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, this action is remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court and Coleman's motion to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot.
This order resolves ECF No. 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED.