Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01863/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-01863-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Next Generation Capital II, LLC
Plaintiff
Next Generation Capital LLC
Plaintiff
Chris Scott
Defendant

Document Text:

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

NEXT GENERATION CAPITAL LLC, 

DBA NEXT GENERATION CAPITAL II, 

LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRIS SCOTT AND DOES 1 TO 10,

INCLUSIVE

Defendants.

No. 2:16-cv-01863-TLN-AC

SUA SPONTE REMAND ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendant Chris Scott’s (“Defendant”) Notice 

of Removal and Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1–2.) For the reasons set forth 

below, Defendant’s Motion to Proceed in Forma Pauperis is GRANTED. The Court hereby 

remands the action to the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento, due to lack of 

subject-matter jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On or about June 21, 2016, Plaintiff Next Generation LLC dba Next Generation Capital II, 

LLC (“Plaintiff”) brought an action against Defendant for possession of the real property known 

as 3804 Norris Ave., Sacramento, CA, 95821 (“the Property”). (Notice of Removal, ECF No. 1

Case 2:16-cv-01863-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/09/16 Page 1 of 4
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

at 6.) The complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s predecessor in interest purchased the Property on or 

about November 2, 2015. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant is the former owner 

of the Property and alleges that Defendant was served with a Notice to Quit on June 17, 2016.

(ECF No. 1 at 7.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendant remains in possession of the property after 

expiration of the Notice to Quit. (ECF No. 1 at 8.)

II. STANDARD OF LAW

28 U.S.C. § 1441 permits the removal to federal court of any civil action over which “the 

district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). Under 28 

U.S.C. § 1443(1), removal of an action to federal court is also permitted where the pending action 

is “[a]gainst any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under 

any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons 

within the jurisdiction thereof.” 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). “Removal is proper only if the court could 

have exercised jurisdiction over the action had it originally been filed in federal court.” 

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). 

Courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal jurisdiction,” and “the 

defendant always has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 

F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (per curiam). Furthermore, “[i]f the district court at any time 

determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the removed action, it must remedy the 

improvident grant of removal by remanding the action to state court.” California ex rel. Lockyer 

v. Dynegy, Inc., 375 F.3d 831, 838, as amended, 387 F.3d 966 (9th Cir. 2004), cert. denied 544 

U.S. 974 (2005).

III. ANALYSIS

Defendant removed this case to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) 28 

U.S.C. § 1441 provides two paths to removal: 1) federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 

1331; and 2) diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant’s removal action does not 

specify on which grounds he seeks removal under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. However, Defendant’s

briefing provides no legal argument in support of removal under either federal question or 

diversity grounds and the Court finds no basis under which to exercise its jurisdiction.

Case 2:16-cv-01863-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/09/16 Page 2 of 4
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

With respect to federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, the complaint itself 

contains only a single claim for unlawful detainer. (ECF No. 1 at 5–8.) Defendant fails to 

identify any federal law under which the action was brought. In fact, Defendant’s removal notice 

refers only to a California law – California Code of Civil Procedure § 1161(2). (ECF No. 1 at 2.)

Under the well-pleaded complaint rule, “federal [question] jurisdiction exists only when a federal 

question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar, 482 

U.S. at 386. The instant complaint relies solely on California state law and does not mention 

expressly or impliedly any federal law or statute. The well-pleaded complaint rule makes the 

plaintiff the master of his claim, so he may avoid federal jurisdiction by basing his claim 

exclusively on state law, as is the case here. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392.

Removal under diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, requires that the parties be 

citizens of different states and that the amount in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 

$75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Defendant has failed to show by a preponderance of the evidence 

that the amount in controversy has been met. Abrego Abrego v. The Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 

676, 683 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[T]he removing defendant has always borne the burden of establishing 

federal jurisdiction, including any applicable amount in controversy requirement.”). Moreover, 

Defendant has similarly failed to make any argument to indicate that his state citizenship is

diverse from Plaintiff. Id. Therefore, the Court cannot find a basis for removal under diversity 

jurisdiction.

“The ‘strong presumption’ against removal jurisdiction means that the defendant always 

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper.” Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566. For the reasons 

stated, Defendant has failed to demonstrate that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear 

this action. Therefore, it is appropriate to remand this case, sua sponte, for lack of federal 

jurisdiction. See United Investors Life Ins. Co. v. Waddell & Reed Inc., 360 F.3d 960, 967 (9th 

Cir. 2004) (“the district court ha[s] a duty to establish subject matter jurisdiction over the 

removed action sua sponte, whether the parties raised the issue or not.”).

/ / /

/ / / 

Case 2:16-cv-01863-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/09/16 Page 3 of 4
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

4

IV. CONCLUSION

Thus for the reasons stated above, Defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 

No. 2) is GRANTED, and the Court hereby remands this action to the Superior Court of 

California, County of Sacramento.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-01863-TLN-AC Document 4 Filed 08/09/16 Page 4 of 4