1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL No. 2:24-cv-03137-DAD-JDP (UD) (PS) INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER SUA SPONTE REMANDING CASE v. TO THE SACRAMENTO COUNTY 14 SUPERIOR COURT AND DENYING DEBRA BEDFORD, MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 15 PAUPERIS AS MOOT Defendant. 16 (Doc. No. 2)

17 18 This is an unlawful detainer action brought under California state law by plaintiff 19 California Commercial Investment Group, Inc. On November 13, 2024, defendant, proceeding 20 pro se, removed this case to this federal court from the Sacramento County Superior Court and 21 filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. Nos. 1, 2.) 22 A district court has “a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action 23 sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.” United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell 24 & Reed, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004). The removal statute,

, is 25 strictly construed against removal jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, Inc. v. Estate of Lhotka, 26

(9th Cir. 2010). It is presumed that a case lies outside the limited 27 jurisdiction of the federal courts, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party 28 asserting jurisdiction. Geographic Expeditions, 599 F.3d at 1106–07. In addition, “the existence 1 of federal jurisdiction depends solely on the plaintiff’s claims for relief and not on anticipated 2 defenses to those claims.” ARCO Envtl. Remediation, LLC v. Dep’t of Health & Envtl. Quality, 3

, 1113 (9th Cir. 2000). “The strong presumption against removal jurisdiction” 4 means that “the court resolves all ambiguity in favor of remand to state court.” Hunter v. Philip 5 Morris USA,

(9th Cir. 2009). That is, federal jurisdiction over a removed 6 case “must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the first instance.” 7 Geographic Expeditions,

. “If at any time prior to judgment it appears that the 8 district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

(c); 9 Gibson v. Chrysler Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2001). Remand under

(c) 10 “is mandatory, not discretionary.” Bruns v. NCUA,

, 1257 (9th Cir. 1997); see also 11 California ex. rel. Lockyer v. Dynegy, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004). Where it appears, 12 as it does here, that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, “the 13 case shall be remanded.”

(c). 14 “The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 15 complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is 16 presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” California v. United States, 17

(9th Cir. 2000); see also Dynegy,

. Under the well-pleaded 18 complaint rule, courts look to what “necessarily appears in the plaintiff’s statement of his own 19 claim in the bill or declaration, unaided by anything in anticipation of avoidance of defenses 20 which it is thought the defendant may interpose.” California,

. Accordingly, “a 21 case may not be removed on the basis of a federal defense . . . even if the defense is anticipated in 22 the plaintiff’s complaint and both parties concede that the federal defense is the only question 23 truly at issue.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams,

(1987); see also Vaden v. 24 Discover Bank,

(2009) (“It does not suffice to show that a federal question lurks 25 somewhere inside the parties’ controversy, or that a defense or counterclaim would arise under 26 federal law.”). 27 Here, defendant has not shown that removal of this action to this federal court is 28 appropriate. Defendant invokes the statute governing removal of cases involving the denial of a 1 plaintiff’s civil rights,

. (See Doc. No. 1 at 2.) However, plaintiff brings a 2 single, straightforward unlawful detainer claim against defendants, which is a matter purely of 3 state law. See, e.g., Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Zimmerman, No. 2:15-cv-08268-CAS-RW, 2015

, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (collecting cases in which courts remanded the 5 matter back to state court where the only claim alleged was an unlawful detainer action). Further, 6 defendant cannot “invoke a potential defense to the unlawful detainer action sounding in a civil 7 rights claim based on racial discrimination” or disability discrimination to establish federal 8 question jurisdiction. TC Miramonte 1 LLC v. McNair, No. 2:24-cv-01409-DJC-CSK,

2292783, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 21, 2024) (citing Caterpillar, Inc.,

). Therefore, 10 defendant has failed to establish federal question jurisdiction. 11 Further, even though defendant does not invoke diversity jurisdiction, it is clear that this 12 case does not meet the amount-in-controversy requirement of $75,000. See Canela v. Costco 13 Wholesale Corp.,

(9th Cir. 2020) (citing

(a)). As an initial 14 matter, the Sacramento County Superior Court complaint states that the case is a limited action 15 that does not exceed $10,000. (See Doc. No. 1 at 10.) In determining the amount in controversy, 16 courts first look to the complaint. Ibarra v. Manheim Inv., Inc.,

(9th Cir. 17 2015). Here, plaintiff’s complaint seeks the award of approximately $5,800 plus “reasonable 18 attorney fees.”1 (Doc. No. 1 at 35.) Generally, “the sum claimed by the plaintiff controls if the 19 claim is apparently made in good faith.” Ibarra,

(quoting St. Paul Mercury 20 Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.,

(1938)). Defendant has not argued that plaintiff’s 21 damage allegation was not made in good faith and has failed to establish by a preponderance of 22 the evidence that the amount in controversy actually exceeded the jurisdictional threshold at the 23 time of removal. See Canela,

(quoting Sanchez v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102

, 404 (9th Cir. 1996)). The court thus concludes that defendant has not alleged the 25 minimum amount-in-controversy required to establish diversity jurisdiction either. See Canela, 26

. 27 1 Plaintiff’s complaint seeks past-due rent of $4,317.00 and damages at the rate of $31.40 per day 28 since October 1, 2024. (Doc. No. 1 at 34–35.) 1 Accordingly, 2 1. This action is remanded forthwith to the Sacramento County Superior Court, 3 pursuant to

(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; 4 2. Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. No. 2) is denied as having 5 been rendered moot by this order; and 6 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. * | Dated: _ November 15, 2024 Dab A. 2, sxe 9 DALE A. DROZD 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28