Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02843/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02843-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Paul S. Chan
Plaintiff
Vallie Light
Defendant
Lowell Allen Light
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL S. CHAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOWELL ALLEN LIGHT, VALLIE 

LIGHT, and DOES 1 TO 10,

Defendants.

No. 2:16-CV-02843-TLN-CKD

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Lowell Allen Light and Vallie 

Light’s (jointly “Defendants”) Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1.) Defendants filed separate 

motions to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 2 & 3.) For the reasons set forth below, the 

Court 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 October 26, 2016, Plaintiff Paul S. Chan (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful detainer action 

in the Sacramento County Superior Court of California. (Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1.) The 

complaint alleged that on October 17, 2016, Defendants failed to comply with a 3-day notice to 

pay rent or quit the premises. (ECF No. 1 at 7.) On December 2, 2016, Defendants filed a Notice 

of Removal in the United States District Court, Eastern District of California. (ECF No. 1.) In 

Case 2:16-cv-02843-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/08/16 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

their Notice of Removal, Defendants allege the Court has jurisdiction under “28 U.S.C. § 1441 (a) 

and/or (b).” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendants mention “[t]he complaint presents federal questions.” 

(ECF No. 1 at 2.) 

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). “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). 

The “presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction is governed by the ‘well-pleaded 

complaint rule,’ which provides that federal 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. 

Removal cannot be based on a defense, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim raising a 

federal question, whether filed in state court or federal court. See Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 

U.S. 49 (2009); Hunter v. Philip Morris USA, 582 F.3d 1039, 1042–43 (9th Cir. 2009). 

III. ANALYSIS

Defendants state in their notice of removal that jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 

1441(a) and/or (b). (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendant states that “federal question exists because 

Defendant’s demurrer, a pleading depend [sic] on the determination of Defendant’s rights and 

Plaintiff’s duties under federal law.” (ECF No. 1 at 2.) After reviewing the Notice of Removal, 

the Court concludes that Defendants cannot present a viable argument to support federal 

jurisdiction on either basis. 

Case 2:16-cv-02843-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/08/16 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

Subject matter jurisdiction exists where a federal question arises on the face of the 

complaint or if there is diversity jurisdiction. Here, there is no federal cause of action that would 

supply this court with original jurisdiction. See Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 386 (“federal [question] 

jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly 

pleaded complaint”). Plaintiff does not bring any claims within the complaint that involve a 

federal question. Defendants assert that their demurrer in state court creates federal question 

because it depends on a determination of the parties’ rights and duties under federal law. 

However, Defendants have not presented adequate facts to demonstrate how federal law arises 

out of the demurrer. Even if the Defendants had adequately alleged a federal question from the 

demurrer, the federal question would not arise on the face of the complaint. Therefore, Defendant 

is not entitled to removal on the grounds of federal question jurisdiction. 

Furthermore, Defendants cannot satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction under 

section 1332. Section 1332 states that “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all 

civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of 

interest and costs, and is between—(1) citizens of different States.” Defendants do not assert that 

the parties are citizens of different states. 

Moreover, the burden of proving the amount in controversy depends on what the plaintiff 

has pleaded. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 998, 1000 (9th Cir. 2007). 

When the complaint alleges damages less than the jurisdictional requirement, the party seeking 

removal must prove the amount in controversy with legal certainty. Id.; Rynearson v. Motricity, 

Inc., 601 F. Supp. 2d 1238, 1240 (W.D. Wash. 2009). Plaintiff’s complaint alleges damages 

calculated at $46.67 per day. At the time of filing, Plaintiff only requested past due rent in the 

amount of $1400.00, reasonable attorney fees and the fair rental value of $46.67 dollar per day. 

(ECF No. 1 at 8.) The sum would not amount to any value close to $75,000. Defendants do not 

prove with legal certainty that the damages as of removal would exceed $75,000. Therefore, 

Defendants fail to meet the burden of showing that the amount in controversy is met. 

Defendants have failed to establish their burden of showing that jurisdiction before this 

Court is proper based on diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. Therefore, it is 

Case 2:16-cv-02843-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/08/16 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

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.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby REMANDS this action to the Superior Court 

of California, County of Sacramento. Additionally, the Court has reviewed Defendants Lowell 

Light’s and Vallie Light’s separate motions for in forma pauperis status (ECF Nos. 2 & 3), and 

finds that Defendants meet the requisite standard. As such, Defendants’ motions for in forma 

pauperis status are GRANTED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 6, 2016

Case 2:16-cv-02843-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 12/08/16 Page 4 of 4