Maureen v. Smith

District Court, S.D. California · 3:24-cv-01630 · 2025-07-15 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: John A. Houston (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T20:59Z · confidence high

The court reviewed a Notice of Removal filed by a respondent who claimed diversity jurisdiction based on a lien amount of nearly one billion dollars, despite admitting both parties were citizens of the same state. The court found no subject-matter jurisdiction due to the lack of complete diversity and the failure to plausibly allege the amount in controversy, and ordered the case remanded to state court.

What the court decided	The model
Remand of case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego “the Court finds no subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, where it was originally filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).”	agree with court The court correctly identified that complete diversity of citizenship was absent, as the respondent's own civil cover sheet indicated both parties were citizens of the same state. Additionally, the respondent failed to provide a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and Dart Cherokee Basin. The court's reliance on the face of the pleadings to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is consistent with St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.

What the court decided

The model

Remand of case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego

“the Court finds no subject-matter jurisdiction in this matter and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California for the County of San Diego, where it was originally filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).”

agree with court
The court correctly identified that complete diversity of citizenship was absent, as the respondent's own civil cover sheet indicated both parties were citizens of the same state. Additionally, the respondent failed to provide a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 threshold, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) and Dart Cherokee Basin. The court's reliance on the face of the pleadings to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction is consistent with St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co.

The order itself: sound — The order is sound because it correctly applies the statutory requirements for diversity jurisdiction. It notes the fatal defect of incomplete diversity (same state citizenship) and the failure to meet the amount in controversy threshold with a plausible allegation. The citations to Dart Cherokee and St. Paul Mercury are appropriate for the jurisdictional analysis.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

inconsistent with cited authority

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 The Hon. Maureen Hallahan, Presiding Case No.: 3:24-cv-01630-JAH-KSC Judge of the San Diego Superior Court, 8 ORDER REMANDING CASE Petitioner, 9 v. [ECF No. 1] 10 Andre Mario Smith, 11 Respondent. 12 13 BACKGROUND 14 On September 10, 2024, Respondent Andre Mario Smith (“Respondent”) filed a 15 Notice of Removal (“NOR”) in the above-entitled matter. ECF No. 1. Respondent seeks 16 federal court jurisdiction over a petition by the Honorable Maureen Hallahan, Presiding 17 Judge of the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego (“Petitioner”), to strike 18 and release a lien that Respondent had placed on her property. Id. at 7. 19 On May 15, 2024, Petitioner filed an ex parte petition to strike and release a lien that 20 Respondent had placed on her property. ECF No. 1-2 at 1. On July 12, 2024, the 21 Honorable John Meyer of the Superior Court of California granted the petition and ordered 22 all liens and encumbrances filed or recorded by Respondent against the property of 23 Petitioner be stricken and released, including the lien and encumbrance Respondent placed 24 on Petitioner’s property in UCC Filing No. U240035096932. ECF No. 1-3 at 3. The court 25 also ordered the Office of the California Secretary of State to “take all steps necessary to 26 strike and release the lien and encumbrance.” Id. 27 28 1 Respondent seeks removal of the case to federal court based solely on diversity 2 ||jurisdiction. ECF No. 1-1 at 1. Respondent indicates on his civil cover sheet that both 3 || Petitioner and Respondent are citizens of the same state. /d. Respondent represents in his 4 || Notice of Removal, however, that he is a citizen of Tatwan, and Respondent also contends 5 ||the amount in controversy is $999,999,999.99. ECF No. | at 7. 6 DISCUSSION 7 When a case is removed from state court to federal court based on diversity 8 ||jurisdiction, the amount in controversy must exceed the sum or value of $75,000. 9 ||28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). A defendant’s notice of removal “need include only a plausible 10 |/allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.” Dart 11 || Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 89 (2014). If it is clear from 12 ||the face of the pleadings that the party “cannot recover the amount claimed,” then the 13 || federal court may dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. 14 || Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283, 288-289 (1938). 15 Here, Respondent has provided no plausible basis for establishing the amount in 16 controversy at multiple millions of dollars. Respondent contends he has placed a lien on 17 || the Petitioner’s property for the amount of many billions of dollars (ECF No. 1 at 7), but 18 provides no factual allegations supporting the amount in controversy in this matter. 19 || Because Respondent fails to provide a “plausible allegation” that the amount in controversy 20 || exceeds the jurisdictional threshold, and because it is clear from the removal notice that the 21 ||Respondent cannot recover the amount claimed, the Court finds no subject-matter 22 jurisdiction in this matter and REMANDS the case to the Superior Court of California for 23 || the County of San Diego, where it was originally filed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 || DATED: July 15, 2025 Mk 17 JOHN A. HOUSTON / UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28