Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02878/USCOURTS-caed-2_16-cv-02878-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Max Ciardelli
Defendant
Vintage Oaks Senior Apartments, LP
Plaintiff

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 

VINTAGE OAKS SENIOR 

APARTMENTS, LP, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Max Ciardelli, et. al., 

Defendant. 

No. 2:16-cv-02878-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

The issue in this case is unlawful detainer, with an amount in controversy of less 

than $4,000. See ECF No. 1 at 11. Defendant Max Ciardelli filed a motion to proceed in forma 

pauperis (IFP). ECF No. 2. 

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 

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)). “If at any time 

Case 2:16-cv-02878-KJM-KJN Document 3 Filed 12/09/16 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

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 Sacramento County 

Superior Court. The amount in controversy is less than $75,000, and the main issue turns on state 

law. Removal is improper because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. § 1331 or § 1332. 

This case is remanded to Sacramento County Superior Court. Defendant’s IFP 

motion is DENIED as MOOT. 

This resolves ECF Nos. 1 and 2. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 8, 2016. 

Case 2:16-cv-02878-KJM-KJN Document 3 Filed 12/09/16 Page 2 of 2