The Vue on Seamist, LLC v. Robertson

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California sua sponte remanded an unlawful detainer action to Sacramento County Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court held that the defendant had not established federal-question or diversity jurisdiction and denied the defendant’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis as moot.

Holdings

1. A removed action may be removed on federal-question grounds only when a federal question appears on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint; anticipated federal defenses, constitutional-rights allegations by the removing defendant, or a federal issue elsewhere in the controversy do not establish jurisdiction. Because the state-court complaint was not before the court and the removal papers did not establish a federal question on its face, federal-question jurisdiction was not shown.
2. Diversity jurisdiction was not established because the removal papers did not allege the parties' citizenship or the required amount in controversy, and the court could not determine from the record that more than $75,000 was in controversy.
3. When a district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over a removed case, remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) is mandatory rather than discretionary.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the removal papers established federal-question jurisdiction under the well-pleaded complaint rule.
2. Whether the removal papers established diversity jurisdiction, including diversity of citizenship and the amount-in-controversy requirement.
3. Whether remand was mandatory under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) when subject matter jurisdiction was not established.
4. Whether the motion to proceed in forma pauperis should be denied as moot after remand.

Disposition

remanded