Your document has been successfully saved!

Search through millions of court cases, regulations, statutes and more...

Search for
Boolean Connector Use Result
AND Sleep AND Fall Records with both “Slip” and “Fall”
OR Lee OR Grant Records with either “Lee” or “Grant”
NOT Transaction NOT Fee Records that contain “Transaction” but exclude “Fee”
( ) (Tree OR Shrub) AND Fall Records containing “Tree” or “Shrub”, and the word “Fall”
" " "Capital Punishment" Records containing the exact phrase “Capital Punishment”
* Affirm* Records containing variations of the root word (such as “Affirmed”, “Affirming”, “Affirmation”, and etc…)
? Connect?r Records that contain single letter variations (such as “Connector” and “Connecter”)
Jurisdiction: California Central District Court
Decision Date: 6/1/2012



                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Socal Fund 1 Socal Fund 1, LLC v. Jimenez-Ortiz (C.D. Cal., 2012)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Socal Fund 1, LLC
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Maria Jimenez-Ortiz

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Case No. CV 12-4678 PSG (JCx)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Date June 1, 2012

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Socal Fund 1, LLC v. Maria Jimenez-Ortiz

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Case No. CV 12-4678 PSG (JCx)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Date June 1, 2012

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Present: The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Attorneys Present for Plaintiff(s):         Not Present

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Attorneys Present for Defendant(s):         Not Present

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order REMANDING Case to State Court

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                On May 29, 2012, Defendant Maria Jimenez-Ortiz ("Defendant") filed a notice of removal of a civil action for unlawful detainer brought by Plaintiff Socal Fund 1, LLC ("Plaintiff"). See Dkt # 1. After reviewing Defendant's notice of removal and the underlying Complaint, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co 372 F. 3d 1115, 1116 (9th Cir. 2004) (observing that a court is required to consider sua sponte whether it has subject matter jurisdiction).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Generally, subject matter jurisdiction is based on the presence of a federal question, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or on complete diversity between the parties, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332. If at any time before the entry of final judgment it appears that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a case removed from state court, it must remand the action to state court. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Int'l Primate Prot. League v. Adm'rs of Tulane Educ. Fund, 500 U.S. 72 87 (1991). There is a "strong presumption" against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc 980 F.2d 546 566 (9th Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, federal jurisdiction must be rejected. Id. at 567.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                The well-pleaded complaint rule requires a federal question be evident from the face of the plaintiff's complaint for jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 to exist. See Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). Here, the Complaint only asserts a claim for unlawful detainer, a cause of action that is purely a matter of state law, and does not present a federal question.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Page 2

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendant's notice of removal argues various violations of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Court first notes that the Declaration of Independence does not provide a private right of action. Second, under the well-pleaded complaint rule, a defendant's federal claims or defenses may not serve as a basis for removal. See Takeda v. Nw. Nat'l Life Ins. Co 765 F.2d 815 822 (9th Cir. 1985); Le v. Young Champions Recreation Programs, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36074, at *3-4 (C. D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2008) ("Removal cannot be based on a counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim raising a federal question; to hold otherwise would allow defendants to determine the removeability of a case. "). Therefore, Defendant's constitutional claims do not confer jurisdiction in this matter.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendant also argues that removal is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1443. See Not. 6: 8-7: 28. To establish removal under this statute, a defendant's notice of removal must (1) assert a right under a federal law protecting civil rights stated in terms of racial equality and (2) identify a state statute or constitutional provision that purports to command the state courts to ignore the enforcement of the specified federal right in state courts. See City of Greenwood v. Peacock, 384 U.S. 808 824-28 (1966). Defendant has made no such showing.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Defendant also invokes diversity jurisdiction. Not. 2: 4-5. For a federal court to exercise diversity jurisdiction, there must be "complete" diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy requirement must be met. See Strawbridge v. Curtis, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267, 267 (1806); 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Here, Defendant's notice of removal fails to establish the citizenship of any party. As for the amount in controversy, the Complaint states the amount demanded does not exceed $10, 000. Compl. at 1: 16-17. This is far below the statutory requirement that the amount in controversy must exceed $75, 000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Moreover, the Complaint only seeks damages in the amount of $66. 67 per day since April 3, 2012. Compl. 13. As of today, these damages would equal less than $4, 000. Therefore, even with costs of suit, the amount in controversy requirement cannot be met.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction and REMANDS the case.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                IT IS SO ORDERED.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        Please, select a date range