1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 The Hon. Maureen Hallahan, Presiding Case No.: 3:24-cv-01630-JAH-KSC Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, 8 ORDER REMANDING CASE Petitioner, 9 v. [ECF No. 1] 10 Andre Mario Smith, 11 Respondent. 12

13 BACKGROUND 14 On September 10, 2024, Respondent Andre Mario Smith (“Respondent”) filed a 15 Notice of Removal (“NOR”) in the above-entitled matter. ECF No. 1. Respondent seeks 16 federal court jurisdiction over a petition by the Honorable Maureen Hallahan, Presiding 17 Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (“Petitioner”), to strike 18 and release a lien that Respondent had placed on her property. Id. at 7. 19 On May 15, 2024, Petitioner filed an ex parte petition to strike and release a lien that 20 Respondent had placed on her property. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. On July 12, 2024, the 21 Honorable John Meyer of the Superior Court of California granted the petition and ordered 22 all liens and encumbrances filed or recorded by Respondent against the property of 23 Petitioner be stricken and released, including the lien and encumbrance Respondent placed 24 on Petitioner’s property in UCC Filing No. U240035096932. ECF No. 1-3 at 3. The court 25 also ordered the Office of the California Secretary of State to “take all steps necessary to 26 strike and release the lien and encumbrance.” Id. 27 28 1 Respondent seeks removal of the case to federal court based solely on diversity 2 ||jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Respondent indicates on his civil cover sheet that both 3 || Petitioner and Respondent are citizens of the same state. /d. Respondent represents in his 4 || Notice of Removal, however, that he is a citizen of Tatwan, and Respondent also contends 5 ||the amount in controversy is $999,999,999.99. ECF No. | at 7. 6 DISCUSSION 7 When a case is removed from state court to federal court based on diversity 8 ||jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000. 9 ||

(a). A defendant’s notice of removal “need include only a plausible 10 |/allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 11 || Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens,

, 89 (2014). If it is clear from 12 ||the face of the pleadings that the party “cannot recover the amount claimed,” then the 13 || federal court may dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. 14 || Red Cab Co.,

(1938). 15 Here, Respondent has provided no plausible basis for establishing the amount in 16 controversy at multiple millions of dollars. Respondent contends he has placed a lien on 17 || the Petitioner’s property for the amount of many billions of dollars (ECF No. 1 at 7), but 18 provides no factual allegations supporting the amount in controversy in this matter. 19 || Because Respondent fails to provide a “plausible allegation” that the amount in controversy 20 || exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, and because it is clear from the removal notice that the 21 ||Respondent cannot recover the amount claimed, the Court finds no subject-matter 22 jurisdiction in this matter and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California for 23 || the County of San Diego, where it was originally filed, pursuant to

(c). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: July 15, 2025 Mk 17 JOHN A. HOUSTON / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28