Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02672/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02672-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1442 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 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

PROMISE INVESTMENT, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SERGIO VALENCIA and Does I to X, 

Inclusive, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-2672-KJM-EFB PS 

ORDER 

On November 10, 2016, defendant Sergio Valencia, proceeding pro se, removed 

this unlawful detainer action from San Joaquin County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Mr. Valencia 

also filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. ECF No. 2. As explained below, the court 

REMANDS the case to the San Joaquin County Superior Court and DENIES as moot Mr. 

Valencia’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis. 

I. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 

A. Legal Standard 

When a case “of which the district courts of the United States have original 

jurisdiction” is initially brought in state court, a defendant may remove it to federal court. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). There are two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

Case 2:16-cv-02672-KJM-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/09/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

2

question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and (2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. 

As provided by § 1331, district courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all 

civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 

1331. Under the longstanding well-pleaded complaint rule, a suit “arises under” federal law 

“only when the plaintiff’s statement of his own cause of action shows that it is based upon 

[federal law].” Louisville & Nashville R. Co. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149, 152 (1908). Federal 

question jurisdiction cannot rest upon an actual or anticipated defense or counterclaim. Vaden v. 

Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009). 

As provided by § 1332, district courts have diversity-in-citizenship jurisdiction 

where the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 and the parties are in complete diversity. 28 

U.S.C. § 1332. “Where it is not facially evident from the complaint that more than $75,000 is in 

controversy, the removing party must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the amount 

in controversy meets the jurisdictional threshold.” Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 

319 F.3d 1089, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003). 

A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 

established federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it 

appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”); 

Enrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Wilson v. Republic 

Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921)). 

B. Discussion 

Mr. Valencia’s Notice of Removal asserts the court has federal question 

jurisdiction because “Defendant’s Answer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of 

Defendant’s rights and Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” ECF No. 1 at 3. However, the form 

complaint plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer under California 

Code of Civil Procedure section 1161a, which is a matter of state law. See Compl., Ex. “A,” ECF 

No. 1. 

Case 2:16-cv-02672-KJM-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

3

As stated above, Mr. Valencia’s answer or counterclaim cannot serve as the basis 

for federal question jurisdiction. Vaden, 556 U.S. at 60. Plaintiff is the master of the complaint 

and may, as here, “avoid federal jurisdiction by pleading solely state-law claims.” Valles v. Ivy 

Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075 (9th Cir. 2005). Because plaintiff’s complaint does not show 

that it is based upon federal law, the court does not have federal question jurisdiction over the 

action. 

Neither does the court appear to have diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff’s form 

complaint declares this is a “limited case” where the amount in controversy “does not exceed 

$10,000.” Compl., Ex. “A,” ECF No. 1. The complaint demarcates the limited damages plaintiff 

seeks: $1,350 in past due rent, $45.00 a day for each day after October 1, 2016, and the costs of 

suit. Id. Because these damages are not likely to total more than $75,000, and Mr. Valencia has 

provided no other evidence or allegations as to the amount in controversy, the court does not 

appear to have diversity jurisdiction over the action. 

II. REQUEST TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS 

For the foregoing reasons, the court has determined sua sponte that it appears to 

lack subject matter jurisdiction, and thus remands the case to the San Joaquin County Superior 

Court. Cf. Matheson, 319 F.3d at 1090 (“Where doubt regarding the right to removal exists, a 

case should be remanded to state court.”). As a result, Mr. Valencia’s motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis is moot. 

III. CONCLUSION 

It is HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. This action is REMANDED to San Joaquin County Superior Court. 

2. Mr. Valencia’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

This order resolves ECF No. 2. 

DATED: December 8, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02672-KJM-EFB Document 4 Filed 12/09/16 Page 3 of 3