DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP v. Exum
- 3:24-cv-02552
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP v. Exum, the court remanded the case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; the judge is not named.
The order returned DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP’s unlawful-detainer action against Jessy Exum and Does 1–5 to state court. It did not decide the underlying rent or eviction dispute.
What happened
DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP v. Exum involved a state unlawful-detainer case based on nonpayment of rent. Jessy Exum removed the case to federal court, but the removal occurred close to two months after the complaint was served and four court days before trial.
The court said the removal request was untimely, the amount in controversy—between $3,506.56 and $4,223.23, excluding costs and attorney fees—was below the required threshold, and the case was based only on state law. The court denied, without prejudice, the plaintiff’s application as to the substantive motion to remand, vacated the scheduled hearing, and remanded the case to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
The court, whose judge is not identified in the opinion text, ordered that Jessy Exum and Does 1–5 had failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and remanded the case forthwith.
The detailed version
- DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP v. Exum · No. 3:24-cv-02552
- May 8, 2024
Background
DS HOUSING CCCRR-01, LP brought an unlawful-detainer action based on nonpayment of rent in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of San Francisco, case number CUD24673910. Jessy Exum removed the action to federal court. The notice of removal was filed on April 29, 2024, close to two months after service of the complaint and four court days before the scheduled May 6, 2024 trial. The amount in controversy ranged from $3,506.56 to $4,223.23, excluding costs and attorney fees.
Remand proceedings
The plaintiff applied for an order remanding the action or shortening the time for a hearing. The opinion states that, as noted in the defendant’s opposition, the application was procedurally and substantively defective. The court therefore denied the application, without prejudice, as to the substantive motion to remand and vacated the hearing scheduled for July 16, 2024.
Jurisdictional ruling
The court independently considered whether federal subject-matter jurisdiction existed. It explained that federal courts have limited jurisdiction, that the party seeking removal bears the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, and that any doubt about removal must be resolved in favor of sending the case back to state court. The court concluded that the request for remand was untimely, the amount in controversy was below the jurisdictional threshold, and the case was based solely on state law.
Disposition
The court remanded the action to state court for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It found that Jessy Exum and Does 1–5 had failed to establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction and ordered that the case be remanded forthwith.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.