Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00930/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-00930-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL

TRUST COMPANY AS TRUSTEE

FOR DSLA MORTGAGE LOAN

TRUST 2004-AR4,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13cv930-MMA (BGS)

ORDER SUA SPONTE

REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT 

vs.

DAVID LOUDON,

Defendant.

On April 18, 2013, Defendant David Loudon, proceeding pro se, filed a

notice of removal of this unlawful detainer action from the Superior Court of the

State of California for San Diego County. Having reviewed Defendant’s notice of

removal, the Court finds it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action. 

Accordingly, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to state court. 

DISCUSSION

The federal court is one of limited jurisdiction. Lowdermilk v. U.S. Bank

Nat’l Ass’n, 479 F.3d 994, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). It possesses only that power

authorized by the Constitution or a statute. See Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch.

Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). It is constitutionally required to raise issues related

to federal subject matter jurisdiction, and may do so sua sponte. Steel Co. v.

Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 93-94 (1998); see Indus. Tectonics, Inc. v.

Aero Alloy, 912 F.2d 1090, 1092 (9th Cir. 1990). Removal jurisdiction is governed

- 1 - 13cv930

Case 3:13-cv-00930-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 04/19/13 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

by 28 U.S.C. § 1441 et seq. A state court action can only be removed if it could

have originally been brought in federal court. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S.

386, 392, (1987); Duncan v. Stuetzle, 76 F.3d 1480, 1485 (9th Cir. 1996). Thus, for

an action to be removed on the basis of federal question jurisdiction, the complaint

must establish either that federal law creates the cause of action or that the plaintiff’s

right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of substantial questions of

federal law. Franchise Tax Board of Cal. v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust

for Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 10-1 (1983). Alternatively, a federal court may have

diversity jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states where the

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

The presence or absence of federal question jurisdiction “is governed by the

‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides that federal jurisdiction exists only

when a federal question is presented on the face of plaintiff’s properly pleaded

complaint.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987). A review of

the state court complaint in this case shows that Plaintiff alleges a single unlawful

detainer claim under California state law. 

“The burden of establishing federal jurisdiction is on the party seeking

removal, and the removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” 

Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th Cir. 1988). “Federal

jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as to the right of removal in the

first instance.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992). 

Defendant argues that this action involves matters beyond a single state law

claim for unlawful detainer. Defendant states that this Court has jurisdiction

pursuant to the Securities and Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(d)(1), 77v(a),

78u(d)(3)(A), 78u(e), and 78aa, and the federal RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962, et

seq. See Notice of Removal, Doc. No. 1. Defendant further contends that he can

“prove” that this action is a “criminal matter brought under the disguise of a

non-judicial foreclosure” and that Plaintiff “committed fraud by bring[ing] a

- 2 - 13cv930

Case 3:13-cv-00930-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 04/19/13 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Security Bond issue to the Superior Court of San Diego under the scheme of a Non

Judicial Foreclosure. . . .” Id. 

Liberally construing the notice of removal, Defendant’s purported federal

“claims” are actually defenses and potential counterclaims against Plaintiff. 

However, neither defenses nor counterclaims are considered in evaluating whether a

federal question appears on the face of a Plaintiff’s complaint. Vaden v. Discover

Bank, 556 U.S. 49, 60 (2009) (federal question jurisdiction cannot “rest upon an

actual or anticipated counterclaim”); Valles v. Ivy Hill Corp., 410 F.3d 1071, 1075

(9th Cir. 2005) (“A federal law defense to a state-law claim does not confer

jurisdiction on a federal court, even if the defense is that of federal preemption and is

anticipated in the plaintiff's complaint.”). As such, Defendant’s allegations do not

establish federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.1

 

Defendant also fails to establish that this court has diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Although Defendant contends that “this matter is a

Securities issue of the State of New York,” there is complete diversity among the

parties, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, the notice of removal does

not demonstrate that the amount in controversy actually exceeds $75,000, and the

face of the state court complaint clearly demonstrates that Plaintiff seeks damages

not exceeding $10,000. Moreover, Defendant, a citizen of California, may not

properly remove this action. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), removal is permitted in

diversity cases only when “none of the parties in interest properly joined and served

as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.”

///

1

 Defendant also references 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1), and appears to be contending that it provides an additional basis for removal here. Section 1443(1) provides that a state court civil action “(1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the

courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons within the jurisdiction thereof” may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division

embracing the place wherein it is pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1443(1). Section 1443 is simply

not applicable to this action. 

- 3 - 13cv930

Case 3:13-cv-00930-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 04/19/13 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

In sum, Defendant has not adequately established a basis for this Court’s

subject matter jurisdiction. The Court must remand the case. See 28 U.S.C. §

1447(c). 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the Court sua sponte REMANDS this action to the

Superior Court of the State of California for San Diego County. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 19, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 4 - 13cv930

Case 3:13-cv-00930-MMA-RBB Document 3 Filed 04/19/13 Page 4 of 4