Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02217/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02217-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Petition for Removal

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTIANA TRUST, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROSALIE V. PANKEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

Case No. 15-cv-02217-DMR 

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE TO 

DISTRICT JUDGE; AND REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION TO GRANT IFP 

APPLICATION AND REMAND TO 

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, 

COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA 

Defendants removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441 from Superior Court of 

California, County of Contra Costa, where it was pending as a complaint for unlawful detainer 

against Defendants. The Notice of Removal states one basis for removal: that diversity exists 

between the parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Notice of Removal [Docket 

No. 1] at 2. Defendants have also filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). 

 When a notice of removal is filed, the court must examine it “promptly,” and, “[i]f it 

clearly appears on the face of the notice and any exhibits annexed thereto that removal should not 

be permitted, the court shall make an order for summary remand.” 28 U.S.C. § 1446(c)(4). Not 

all of the parties have filed a declination or consent to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Therefore, the court issues herein a Report and Recommendation 

and reassigns this case to a District Judge for final disposition, with the recommendation that the 

IFP application be granted and that summary remand be ordered. 

I. IFP APPLICATION 

 Having evaluated Defendants’ financial affidavit, the court finds that they have satisfied 

the economic eligibility requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) and therefore recommends that the 

IFP application be granted. The court next turns to the issue of subject matter jurisdiction. 

Case 4:15-cv-02217-PJH Document 10 Filed 06/23/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

II. DIVERSITY JURISDICTION 

 Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a “federal court is presumed to lack 

jurisdiction in a particular case unless the contrary affirmatively appears.” Stock W., Inc. v. 

Confederated Tribes, 873 F.2d 1221, 1225 (9th Cir. 1989) (citations omitted). A district court has 

diversity jurisdiction where the parties are diverse and “the matter in controversy exceeds the sum 

or value of $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs.” 28 U.S.C. § 1332. “[I]n determining 

whether a challenged jurisdictional amount has been met, district courts are permitted only to 

assess the allegations in a complaint and not the validity of any asserted defenses . . . .” Ochoa v. 

Interbrew Am., Inc., 999 F.2d 626, 629 (2d Cir. 1993). Potential defenses to all or part of a 

plaintiff’s claim do not affect the amount in controversy, because the defense may be shown to be 

invalid. See Riggins v. Riggins, 415 F.2d 1259, 1261-62 (9th Cir. 1969) (noting that statute of 

limitations defense might bar portion of relief sought did not affect amount in controversy). 

Similarly, the amount in controversy is determined without regard to any counterclaim to which a 

defendant may be entitled. See Snow v. Ford Motor Co., 561 F.2d 787, 789 (9th Cir. 1977). 

 In the Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that it is the owner of real property in Concord, 

California; that Plaintiff became the owner of the property by purchasing it at a foreclosure sale in 

October 2014; that Defendants have occupied the property since the foreclosure sale without the 

consent of Plaintiff; that Plaintiff served a Notice to Quit on Defendants on December 12, 2014; 

and that more than 90 days have elapsed since service of the Notice to Quit without Defendants 

quitting and delivering possession of the property to Plaintiff. Notice of Removal at Ex. A 

(Complaint) at ¶¶ 1-7. Plaintiff seeks immediate possession of the property as well as damages in 

the amount of $60 for each day Defendants occupy the property from the expiration of the Notice 

to Quit through the entry of judgment. 

Defendants aver that this case fulfills the diversity jurisdiction requirements simply 

because the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. Notice of Removal at 2. However, 

Defendants have failed to indicate their citizenship or the citizenship of Plaintiff. The Complaint 

does not allege the citizenship of any of the parties. Furthermore, the face of the Complaint 

unequivocally states that the amount in controversy is under $10,000. Compl. at 1. Plaintiff seeks 

Case 4:15-cv-02217-PJH Document 10 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

dam

$4,

jur

det

and

to r

wit

N.D

Da

mages of $60

,500 at prese

isdiction. A

tainer action

For the 

d that this ac

reassign this

Any pa

thin 14 days 

D. Cal. Civ. 

IT IS S

ated: June 23

0 per day fro

ent, which is

Accordingly, 

n. 

reasons abo

ction be rema

s case to a D

arty may file 

after being 

L.R. 72-2. 

SO ORDER

3, 2015 

om approxim

s far less than

there is no b

II

ove, the cour

anded to the

istrict Judge

objections t

served with 

 

RED. 

3

mately March

n the $75,00

basis for exe

II. CONC

rt recommen

 Contra Cos

e. 

to this report

a copy. See

___

h 12, 2015 u

00 minimum 

ercising dive

CLUSION

nds that Defe

sta County S

t and recomm

e 28 U.S.C. §

__________

 Un

until the entr

required to 

ersity jurisdic

endants’ IFP

uperior Cou

mendation w

§ 636(b)(1);

___________

Donna M. 

nited States M

ry of judgme

establish div

ction over th

P application 

urt. The Cler

with the distr

 Fed. R. Civ

__________

Ryu 

Magistrate J

ent, or about 

versity 

he unlawful 

be granted 

rk is directed

rict judge 

v. P. 72(a); 

________ 

Judge 

d

Case 4:15-cv-02217-PJH Document 10 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 3