Opinion
No. C-09-4526 MMC.
September 29, 2009
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS; REMANDING ACTION
Before the Court is defendant Joel Manglicmot's ("Manglicmot") Notice of Removal, filed September 24, 2009, in which he asserts the Court has diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff U.S. Bank National Association's complaint. Also before the Court is Manglicmot's application to proceed in forma pauperis, filed September 24, 2009.
Good cause appearing, the application to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby GRANTED.
A district court has diversity jurisdiction where "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs and is between . . . citizens of different States." See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A district court must remand a removed case to state court "[i]f at any time before final judgment it appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction." See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).
Manglicmot has the burden to establish the Court has jurisdiction over the complaint. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). In that respect, Manglicmot has failed to allege, let alone meet his burden to establish, the parties hereto are citizens of different States. Although Manglicmot alleges he is a citizen of California and that plaintiff is a citizen of Delaware and Minnesota, Manglicmot fails to allege that the other defendants, specifically, Maria Fe Llenado and Maria Luisa Manglicmot, are citizens of states other than Delaware and Minnesota.
Moreover, even if each defendant is a citizen of a state other than Delaware or Minnesota, it is readily apparent from the face of the complaint that the amount in controversy does not exceed the sum of $75,000. See Abrego v. The Dow Chemical Co., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding district court, for purpose of determining jurisdiction, should examine whether it is "facially apparent" from complaint that amount in controversy does not exceed sum of $75,000). Plaintiff's sole claim is for unlawful detainer. On its face, the complaint seeks damages of $50 per day, accruing as of April 14, 2009 (see Compl. ¶¶ 1, 8), for a total not to exceed $10,000 (see Compl. at 1). Manglicmot offers no evidence to show that, contrary to the complaint, the amount in controversy in fact exceeds the sum of $75,000.
Consequently, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the complaint. See Singer, 116 F.3d at 376 (9th Cir. 1997) (holding where "plaintiff does not claim damages in excess of [$75,000] and the defendant offers no facts whatsoever to show that the amount in controversy exceeds [$75,000], then the defendant has not borne the burden on removal of proving that the amount in controversy requirement is satisfied").
Accordingly, the complaint is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Contra Costa.
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.