Morgan Picks Two, LLC v. Modabber
2:17-cv-08194
C.D. Cal.Nov 13, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Morgan Picks Two, LLC filed a state-court unlawful detainer action (Limited Civil Case) seeking less than $10,000.
- Defendant Tina Modabber, appearing pro se, removed the action to federal court asserting federal-question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and diversity jurisdiction under § 1332.
- Defendant’s removal papers asserted statutory violations (e.g., RESPA) as a basis for federal jurisdiction.
- Complaint on its face pleads only unlawful detainer (a state law claim); no federal cause of action is pleaded.
- The Complaint and Notice of Removal do not allege the parties’ citizenship for diversity purposes.
- Plaintiff’s case is a limited civil unlawful detainer action (damages under $10,000), so the amount in controversy is below the federal $75,000 threshold.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether federal-question jurisdiction supports removal | Complaint pleads only state unlawful detainer (no federal claim) | Removal alleges RESPA violation and other federal issues | No — well-pleaded complaint rule controls; federal defenses or anticipated federal claims do not support removal |
| Whether diversity jurisdiction supports removal | Plaintiff did not assert federal citizenship; damages limited under $10,000 | Defendant contends diversity exists (but did not allege citizenship or amount over $75,000) | No — complete diversity and >$75,000 not established; amount in controversy is under federal threshold |
Key Cases Cited
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction)
- Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564 (9th Cir. 1992) (strong presumption against removal; defendant bears burden)
- Scott v. Breeland, 792 F.2d 925 (9th Cir. 1986) (defendant bears burden of proving jurisdiction for removal)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule governs federal-question removal)
- Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1996) (complaint that does not specify federal basis requires clear showing to arise under federal law)
- Sullivan v. First Affiliated Sec., Inc., 813 F.2d 1368 (9th Cir. 1987) (artful pleading exception to well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Vaden v. Discover Bank, 556 U.S. 49 (2009) (reaffirming well-pleaded complaint rule)
- Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365 (1978) (complete diversity required for § 1332 jurisdiction)
- Kantor v. Wellesley Galleries, Ltd., 704 F.2d 1088 (9th Cir. 1983) (establishing domicile standard for diversity citizenship)
- Kanter v. Warner-Lambert Co., 265 F.3d 853 (9th Cir. 2001) (domicile definition for individuals)
- Johnson v. Columbia Props. Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894 (9th Cir. 2006) (LLC citizenship is citizenship of its members)
- Marseilles Hydro Power, LLC v. Marseilles Land & Water Co., 299 F.3d 643 (7th Cir. 2002) (LLC citizenship equals members’ citizenship)
- Evans v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 3d 162 (1977) (in unlawful detainer, title is not at issue; amount in controversy based on damages sought)