Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02527/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-02527-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 230
Nature of Suit: Rent, Lease, Ejectment
Cause of Action: 28:1446 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 

KARENA BAUMGART COBB, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

HAROLD DIGGS & KAREN DIGGS, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:15-cv-02527-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

On December 4, 2015, defendants Harold Diggs and Karen Diggs (collectively 

“defendants”) filed a notice to remove this case from state court to federal court. ECF No. 1 

(“Notice”). Additionally, defendants filed motions to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). ECF Nos. 

3 and 4. Plaintiff Cobb has filed a motion to remand the case to state court. ECF No. 5. The 

issue in this case is one of unlawful detainer. See Notice. The amount in controversy is less than 

$25,000, and the alleged claim against defendant is for failure to comply with California Civil 

Procedure Code § 1161(2). Id. 

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 bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction: (1) federal 

Case 2:15-cv-02527-KJM-AC Document 8 Filed 01/12/16 Page 1 of 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 

2

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

§ 1332. A federal district court may remand a case sua sponte where a defendant has not 

established federal jurisdiction. See 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)). Indeed, “[i]f at any 

time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the 

case shall be remanded.” 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

Here, the court finds the case should be remanded to the Solano County Superior 

Court. Because the amount in controversy is less than $75,000, and the claims turn on state law 

questions, removal is improper because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 

28 U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1441. 

I. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiff’s motion to remand is GRANTED and this case is remanded to Solano 

County Superior Court. Defendants’ IFP motions are DENIED as MOOT. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 11, 2016 

Case 2:15-cv-02527-KJM-AC Document 8 Filed 01/12/16 Page 2 of 2