1 JS -6 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HAIYAN ZHAO, Case No. 5:21-cv-00187-JWH-SPx

12 Plaintiff, ORDER REMANDING CASE 13 v.

14 RAYMOND GRANT PARKMAN,

15 Defendant.

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 1 On February 1, 2021, Raymond Grant Parkman removed this action to 2|| this Court.’ The Court sua sponte reviews its own subject matter jurisdiction. 3|| Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp.,

(2006) (courts “have an independent 4|| obligation to determine whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the 5|| absence of a challenge from any party”). Parkman asserts that the Court has 6 || subject matter jurisdiction based upon federal question jurisdiction and diversity || jurisdiction.” 8 This case involves claims for alleged damages relating to the management 9|| of rental property. The civil case cover sheet lists the causes of action as breach 10 || of contract, unlawful conversion, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of 11|| fiduciary duty. These are not federal claims. Accordingly, the notice of removal 12|| fails to demonstrate that the Court has federal question jurisdiction. See 28 13|| U.S.C. § 1331; Gaus v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992) (“the □□ defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper’’). 15 The notice of removal also alleges that the Court has diversity 16 || jurisdiction. However, this case is a small claims matter, and the total amount 17 || that Plaintiff Haiyan Zhao seeks is listed as $12,889.10°—far less than the 18 || amount-in-controversy requirement of $75,000. See

(a). Thus, this Court does not have diversity subject matter jurisdiction over this case. 20 Accordingly, in the absence of jurisdiction, the Court must sua sponte 21|| REMAND this action to the Riverside County Superior Court. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 { YW || Dated: March 10, 2021 25 GRITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 |} — ” Notice of Removal [ECF No. 1]. 2

at J 5. 25 || 3 P].’s Claim and Order to Go to Small Claims Court [ECF No. 1-1 at 176].