Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC v. Gonzalez
3:17-cv-03915
N.D. Cal.Aug 7, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Breckenridge Property Fund 2016, LLC filed a forcible detainer action in Contra Costa County Superior Court (State Court Action).
- Defendant Deirdre Gonzalez removed the case to federal court and sought to proceed in forma pauperis; the IFP application remains unanswered.
- The magistrate judge issued orders requiring information about Breckenridge’s citizenship for diversity-jurisdiction purposes; Breckenridge filed declarations in response.
- Gonzalez declared she is a California citizen; Breckenridge’s submissions showed its members render it a California citizen for diversity purposes.
- The state complaint is a limited civil action alleging damages not exceeding $10,000 and seeks daily possessory damages; Gonzalez’s Notice of Removal referenced unrelated counterclaims asserting higher damages.
- The magistrate judge recommended sua sponte remand to state court for lack of federal jurisdiction (no federal question; no complete diversity; amount in controversy below threshold).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction exists | Forcible detainer is state law; no federal question alleged | Removal premised on no federal claim; defendant did not identify federal question | No federal-question jurisdiction (forcible detainer is state-law) |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists (complete diversity) | Breckenridge asserted it is a California citizen (via member citizenship) and plaintiff is CA resident, defeating diversity | Gonzalez is a CA citizen; removal assumed diversity possibly based on corporate labels | No complete diversity; both parties are citizens of California |
| Whether amount in controversy meets $75,000 | Complaint states limited civil demand not exceeding $10,000; plaintiff seeks daily rent damages | Gonzalez claimed $126,000 exposure based on counterclaims | Amount in controversy not met; counterclaims cannot be used to satisfy jurisdictional amount |
| Whether court should remand sua sponte | Plaintiff moved to remand raising procedural and jurisdictional defects | Defendant did not timely oppose remand motion or show jurisdictional facts | Recommended remand to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Lively v. Wild Oats Markets, Inc., 456 F.3d 933 (9th Cir. 2006) (forum-defendant rule is procedural rather than jurisdictional)
- Fristoe v. Reynolds Metals Co., 615 F.2d 1209 (9th Cir. 1980) (removal time limits are procedural)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal)
- Matheson v. Progressive Specialty Ins. Co., 319 F.3d 1089 (9th Cir. 2003) (doubts about removability resolved in favor of remand)
- Valdez v. Allstate Ins. Co., 372 F.3d 1115 (9th Cir. 2004) (defendant bears burden to show removal proper)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (U.S. 1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question jurisdiction)
- Johnson v. Columbia Properties Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (LLC citizenship determined by its members)
- Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 2007) (when complaint alleges amount below jurisdictional threshold, removing party must prove jurisdictional amount to a legal certainty)
- Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100 (U.S. 1941) (removal statutes construed narrowly)
- Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank Nat. Ass'n, 479 F.3d 994 (9th Cir. 2007) (standard for proving amount in controversy when complaint alleges low amount)