(UD)(PS) Wells Fargo Bank, National Assoc. v. Sherzad

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA | Wells Fargo Bank, No. 2:22-cv-00820-KJM-CKD 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. Atall Sherzad, et al., 1S Defendants.

17 Defendants Atall Sherzad and Mizhgan Alam, who appear pro se, removed this unlawful | detainer action from the Superior Court of Shasta County. See Not. Removal, ECF No. 1. The | court has reviewed the complaint and notice of removal and has determined on its own motion | that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. This action is thus remanded to the state court.

21 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).

23 | There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: federal question jurisdiction | under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

25 First, 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].”

1 | 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 | USS. 49, 60 (2009).

4 Second, under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction where the | amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are completely diverse. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

6 | “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).

10 Here, plaintiff Bank of America alleges defendants are living unlawfully in a residential | property plaintiff owns. See Compl. § 2, ECF No. 1 at 12-13. Plaintiff asserts one state law | claim for unlawful detainer and no federal claims. See generally id. The parties are not diverse, | and no allegations in the complaint suggest the amount in controversy is greater than | $75,000. See id. at 1 (stating that “demand is less than $10,000). The court therefore lacks | subject matter jurisdiction.

16 Defendants argue that this court has jurisdiction over the matter under both § 1331 and | under § 1441 “because it is a civil action arising under federal law and in which a federal statute | is drawn into controversy.” Not. Removal at 2. However, there are no federal claims or laws at | issue and even if defendants asserted a defense based on federal law, which they do not, a | defendant cannot create a federal question by asserting such a defense. See Vaden, 556 U.S. at | 60.

22 A federal district court may remand a case on its own motion where a defendant has not | established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 24 | 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)).

25 | This action is thus remanded to the Superior Court of Shasta County.

26 IT IS SO ORDERED. , / 27 DATED: May 20, 2022. Vu A xX 9g 28 CHIEF NT] ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE