First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP v. Pierre

Trial Court Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FIRST AND ROSEMARY SENIOR Case No. 23-cv-05702-PCP HOUSING, LP, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 9 REMAND v. 10 Re: Dkt. No. 12 GEORGE PIERRE, 11 Defendant.

12 13 BACKGROUND 14 Plaintiff First and Rosemary Senior Housing, LP brings this lawsuit against pro se 15 defendant George Pierre. First and Rosemary leased property to Pierre in October 2020 and 16 alleges that Pierre has been delinquent in paying his rent as of August 2023. First and Rosemary 17 filed an unlawful detainer action against Pierre in Santa Clara County Superior Court in 18 September 2023, and Pierre removed the case to federal court on November 6, 2023. Before the 19 case was reassigned to District Judge P. Casey Pitts, Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins ordered 20 Pierre to show cause by December 18, 2023 why this case should not be remanded to state court 21 for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 8. Pierre has not responded to the order to show 22 cause. First and Rosemary now moves to remand the case to state court, arguing that this Court 23 lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the lawsuit. For the following reasons, the Court grants 24 plaintiff’s motion. 25 LEGAL STANDARDS 26 “If at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter 27 jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”

28 U.S.C. § 1447

(c). “The party invoking the removal 1 Restaurant,

861 F.2d 1389

, 1393 (9th Cir. 1988). Because this civil action was removed to federal 2 court by defendant Pierre under

28 U.S.C. § 1441

(a), Pierre bears the burden of establishing this 3 Court’s subject matter jurisdiction. Pierre nonetheless failed to respond to First and Rosemary’s 4 motion to remand by the January 18, 2024 opposition deadline or at any point thereafter. 5 The two primary sources of subject matter jurisdiction are diversity jurisdiction and federal 6 question jurisdiction. Diversity jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1332

requires complete diversity, 7 meaning that all persons or associations on one side of the controversy (i.e., all plaintiffs) are 8 citizens of different states from all persons or associations on the other side (i.e., all defendants). 9 Strawbridge v. Curtiss,

7 U.S. 267

(1806). A corporation is a citizen of both the state in which it is 10 incorporated and the state in which it has its principal place of business—the corporation’s “nerve 11 center.” See Hertz Corp. v. Friend,

559 U.S. 77, 81

(2010). To establish diversity jurisdiction, the 12 amount in controversy must also exceed $75,000. See

28 U.S.C. § 1332

(a). Federal question 13 jurisdiction permits a claim to proceed in federal court if it arises “under the Constitution, laws, or 14 treaties of the United States.” See

28 U.S.C. § 1331

. 15 ANALYSIS 16 This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. Diversity jurisdiction is lacking 17 because neither the complete diversity nor the amount in controversy requirements are met. Per 18 plaintiff’s motion, both parties are citizens of California, and the amount in controversy is less 19 than $10,000. Dkt. No. 12, at 3. Federal question jurisdiction is also lacking because there are no 20 federal questions presented in the complaint, which asserts only an unlawful detainer claim under 21 California state law. In Pierre’s notice of removal, he argues that First and Rosemary’s request for 22 rent payment violates both his federal constitutional rights and a federal regulation concerning rent 23 calculation for veterans. Dkt. No. 1, at 4–5. But as Judge Cousins noted in his order to show cause, 24 a “defense that raises a federal question is inadequate to confer federal jurisdiction.” Merrell Dow 25 Pharms. Inc. v. Thompson,

478 U.S. 804, 808

(1986). Pierre’s potential federal defenses are 26 therefore insufficient to establish subject matter jurisdiction over this lawsuit. 27 1 CONCLUSION 2 For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants First and Rosemary’s motion to remand, and 3 || thus denies as moot Pierre’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Dkt. No. 2. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 || Dated: April 3, 2024 Mag bo 7 P. Casey Pitts 8 United States District Judge 9 10 11 a 12

15 16

it

4 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Reference

Status
Unknown