Opinion
No. C-13-5204 MMC
12-03-2013
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. GUILLERMO A. MENESES, et al., Defendants
ORDER REMANDING ACTION
Before the Court is defendants' Notice of Removal, filed November 8, 2013, in which defendants assert the Court has diversity jurisdiction over plaintiff's Complaint for Unlawful Detainer. Having read and considered the Notice, the Court rules as follows.
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).
Defendants bear the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See Singer v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 116 F.3d 373, 376 (9th Cir. 1997). In that respect, defendants have failed to allege, let alone meet their burden to establish, the parties to the instant action are citizens of different States. Moreover, even assuming the parties are diverse, 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 purposes of determining jurisdiction, may consider whether jurisdictional amount is "facially apparent" from complaint). On its face, the complaint seeks "holdover damages at the rate of $88.76 per day, beginning August 24, 2013" (see Compl. at 3:8), in a total amount "not exceed[ing] $10,000" (see Compl. at 1:28). Defendants offer no evidence to show that, contrary to the plain language of 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 (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") (internal quotation and citation omitted).
Accordingly, the complaint is hereby REMANDED to the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the County of San Mateo.
The Clerk shall close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge