Haiyan Zhao v. Raymond Grant Parkman

JS -6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HAIYAN ZHAO, Case No. 5:21-cv-00187-JWH-SPx Plaintiff,

ORDER REMANDING CASE v.

RAYMOND GRANT PARKMAN,

Defendant.

On February 1, 2021, Raymond Grant Parkman removed this action to this Court.’ The Court sua sponte reviews its own subject matter jurisdiction. Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006) (courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any party”). Parkman asserts that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction based upon federal question jurisdiction and diversity || jurisdiction.”

This case involves claims for alleged damages relating to the management of rental property. The civil case cover sheet lists the causes of action as breach of contract, unlawful conversion, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of fiduciary duty. These are not federal claims. Accordingly, the notice of removal fails to demonstrate that the Court has federal question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331; Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (“the □□ defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper’’). The notice of removal also alleges that the Court has diversity jurisdiction. However, this case is a small claims matter, and the total amount that Plaintiff Haiyan Zhao seeks is listed as $12,889.10°—far less than the amount-in-controversy requirement of $75,000. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Thus, this Court does not have diversity subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Accordingly, in the absence of jurisdiction, the Court must sua sponte REMAND this action to the Riverside County Superior Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED. { YW || Dated: March 10, 2021

GRITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE } — ” Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1].

2 Id. at J 5.

3 P].’s Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court [ECF No. 1-1 at 176].