Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00199/USCOURTS-caed-2_17-cv-00199-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Lashon Sales
Defendant
Tyrone G. Sales
Defendant
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.,

Plaintiff,

v.

TYRONE G. SALES; LASHON SALES;

and DOES 1 to 20, inclusive,

Defendants.

No. 2:17-cv-00199-TLN-DB

ORDER

This matter is before the Court pursuant to Defendants Tyrone Sales and Lashon Sales’

(“Defendants”) Notice of Removal. (ECF No. 1.) For the reasons set forth below, the Court 

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

matter jurisdiction.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On September 14, 2016, Plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) filed an unlawful 

detainer action in the Placer County Superior Court of California. (Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1.) 

The complaint alleged that on August 23, 2016, Defendants were given a “3/90-day Notice to 

Quit and Notice to Any Renters at the Property stating that Plaintiff had purchased the Property 

and that its title had been duly perfected and demanding that Defendants and all those occupying 

Case 2:17-cv-00199-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 02/02/17 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

the Property, quit and deliver up possession of the Property to Plaintiff within three days after 

service of said Notice.” (ECF No. 1-1 at 5.) Defendants did not comply with either order and the 

total damages sought were $100 per day from August 27, 2016, through the date of judgement. 

(ECF No. 1-1 at 6.) On January 27, 2017, Defendants filed a Notice of Removal in the United 

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

Defendants allege the Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the parties are 

diverse and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (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 

Case 2:17-cv-00199-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 02/02/17 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

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

III. ANALYSIS

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

1332. (ECF No. 1 at 2.) Defendants claim that complete diversity exists and that the amount in 

controversy should be “measured by the value of the object of the litigation... the subject 

property, which is currently worth $ 1,414,611.00.” (ECF No. 1 at 4.) After reviewing the 

Notice of Removal, the Court concludes that Defendants do not present a viable argument to 

support federal jurisdiction. 

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.” The burden of proving the amount in 

controversy depends on the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint. 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 alleges damages calculated at $100.00 per day from August 27, 2016, through the 

date of judgement. (ECF No. 1-1 at 6.) Plaintiff, however, explicitly waives all damages in 

excess of the jurisdictional limit of the Superior Court of California in its complaint. (ECF No. 1-

1 at 6.) Furthermore, Plaintiff stated that the amount demanded was less than $25,000.00 and did 

not exceed even $10,000. (ECF No. 1-1 at 3, 4.)

Defendants contend that the value of the object of this litigation is the value of the entire 

property, which Defendants state is worth $1,414,611.00, rather than the value of the monetary 

Case 2:17-cv-00199-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 02/02/17 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

damages Plaintiff has demanded. (ECF No. 1 at 4.) Defendants do not cite any legal authority in 

support of their contention. Defendants do not prove with legal certainty that the damages sought 

on the face of the complaint would exceed $75,000 at the time of removal. Therefore, Defendants

fail to meet their burden of showing that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 

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

is proper based on diversity jurisdiction. 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.”).

IV. CONCLUSION

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

of California, County of Placer. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 1, 2017

Case 2:17-cv-00199-TLN-DB Document 4 Filed 02/02/17 Page 4 of 4