Mission Capital Properties, Inc. v. Dominguez
3:17-cv-02167
S.D. Cal.Oct 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Mission Capital Properties filed an unlawful detainer action in San Diego Superior Court against Sean and Paige Dominguez (and Does 1–10).
- Removing Defendants (Sean and Paige) removed the unlawful detainer to federal court; this was their second removal attempt of the same state complaint.
- The complaint asserts a single cause of action: unlawful detainer (state-law claim), seeking $70/day in damages from March 7, 2017.
- Removal notice referenced a document mentioning 12 U.S.C. § 5201 as the basis for federal question jurisdiction.
- The notice of removal also showed both parties are California citizens and the amount in controversy (approx. $16,000 as of the order) is below the $75,000 threshold for diversity jurisdiction.
- The district court sua sponte remanded for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and warned that further improper removal attempts could result in contempt proceedings or pre-filing restrictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal question jurisdiction exists | Unlawful detainer only; no federal claim advanced | Removal relied on a notice referencing 12 U.S.C. § 5201 to establish federal question jurisdiction | No federal-question jurisdiction; statute cited does not confer a private right to federal jurisdiction |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction exists | Amount and citizenship control; Plaintiff seeks only $70/day | Defendants claimed removal despite same-state citizenship and low damages | No diversity: parties are citizens of California and amount in controversy is below $75,000 |
| Whether remand is required | Remand appropriate if no federal jurisdiction apparent from complaint | Defendants attempted removal; court reviews jurisdiction sua sponte | Remand ordered to state court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction |
| Whether further removal attempts will be sanctioned | Plaintiff requested proper venue and enforcement of prior remand | Defendants previously removed same action and were earlier remanded | Court warned of contempt proceedings or pre-filing restrictions for further improper removals |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Luther v. Countrywide Home Loan Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031 (removal statutes strictly construed against removal)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (strong presumption against removal; burden on removing party)