Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00115/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-cv-00115-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arbor Pointe, LLC
Plaintiff
Linda Strong
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 

ARBOR POINTE, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

LINDA STRONG, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:20-cv-00115-KJM-AC 

ORDER 

On January 15, 2020, defendant Linda Strong, proceeding pro se, removed this 

unlawful detainer action from Sacramento County Superior Court. ECF No. 1. Strong also filed 

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

the case to the Sacramento Superior Court and DENIES as moot defendant’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 2:20-cv-00115-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/22/20 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. 

Under § 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). 

Under § 1332, district courts have diversity-of-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) (per curiam). 

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 

Strong’s Notice of Removal asserts the court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1331 because “the complaint alleges non-payment of rents which is an out an [sic] out 

falsehood and t5he [sic] complaint was filed in retaliation for Defendant exercising her 

constitutional rights to petition the government for redress of grievances[.]” Not. of Removal ¶ 3, 

ECF No. 1. The complaint plaintiff filed in state court asserts only a claim for unlawful detainer, 

which is a matter of state law. See Not. of Removal at 8. 

Case 2:20-cv-00115-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/22/20 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 explained above, Strong’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 is not 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 complaint 

seeks “restitution” of the premises, costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, past-due rent of 

$1,535.00, forfeiture of the lease agreement, and damages of $51.17 per day for each day from 

October 31, 2019 until possession of the premises is obtained. Not. of Removal at 9. Because 

these damages are not likely to total more than $75,000, and Strong has provided no other 

evidence or allegations as to the amount in controversy, the court cannot exercise diversity 

jurisdiction over the action. 

Accordingly, the court REMANDS the case to Sacramento County Superior Court. 

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 . . . .”). 

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 Sacramento 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, defendant’s motion for in forma pauperis 

status is moot. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, this action is REMANDED to Sacramento County 

Superior Court, and defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 21, 2020. 

Case 2:20-cv-00115-KJM-AC Document 3 Filed 01/22/20 Page 3 of 3