Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01269/USCOURTS-casd-3_13-cv-01269-0/pdf.json

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

---

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

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE

ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 13-cv-1269-MMA-WVG

vs. ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO

STATE COURT

ROSARIO DELGADILLO,

Defendant.

On May 31, 2013, Defendant Rosario Delgadillo filed a notice of removal from the State of

California, Superior Court for the County of San Diego. The state court complaint alleges a claim

against Delgadillo and Does 1 to 50 for unlawful detainer. Having reviewed Delgadillo’s notice of

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

is procedurally defective. The Court therefore REMANDS this action to San Diego County

Superior 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, 106 S. Ct. 1326, 89 L. Ed.

2d 501 (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

- 1 - 13cv1269

Case 3:13-cv-01269-MMA-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/03/13 Page 1 of 3
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

jurisdiction is governed 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, 10-11 (1983). Additionally, a federal court also has

jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states when the amount in controversy

exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

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

removal statute is strictly construed against removal jurisdiction.” Nishimoto v.

Federman-Bachrach & Assoc., 903 F.2d 709, 712 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990). “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). Whether federal jurisdiction exists is governed by the well-pleaded

complaint rule. Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 392. The well-pleaded complaint rule is a “powerful

doctrine [that] severely limits the number of cases in which state law ‘creates the cause of action’

that may be initiated in or removed to federal district court . . . .” Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at

9-10. Under this rule, the federal question must be “presented on the face of the plaintiff’s properly

pleaded complaint.” Id.; accord Wayne v. DHL Worldwide Express, 294 F.3d 1179, 1183 (9th Cir.

2002). 

Here, Delgadillo indicates on the civil cover sheet (Doc. No. 1-1) that jurisdiction in this

Court is based on a federal question. However, the state court complaint does not allege any claim

“arising under” federal law. Instead, in the state court action, Plaintiff set forth a single cause of

action for unlawful detainer–a claim that arises exclusively under state law. Therefore, this Court

does not have subject matter jurisdiction on the basis of federal question.

This leaves diversity of citizenship as the only available basis of jurisdiction in this Court. 

As noted above, a federal court has jurisdiction over an action involving citizens of different states

when the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The removing party has the

- 2 - 13cv1269

Case 3:13-cv-01269-MMA-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/03/13 Page 2 of 3
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

burden of establishing removal jurisdiction. Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 997; see Abrego Abrego v. The

Dow Chem. Co, 443 F.3d 676, 682-83 (9th Cir. 2006) (the removing defendant has “‘always’ borne

the burden of establishing federal jurisdiction, including any applicable amount in controversy

requirement”) (quoting Gaus, 980 F.2d at 566) (“Normally, this burden is satisfied if the plaintiff

claims a sum greater than the jurisdictional requirement”). The amount in controversy is determined

at the time of removal and is to be decided based on the allegations in the operative pleading. 

Lowdermilk, 479 F.3d at 994. In deciding the issue, the court treats claims for statutory damages by

considering only those damages actually recoverable under the facts alleged. See Sanchez v.

Monumental Life Ins. Co., 102 F.3d 398, 404-05 (9th Cir. 1996).

Delgadillo is a citizen of California. In the notice of removal Delgadillo summarily claims

that Plaintiff is not a citizen of California, so that Plaintiff and Defendant are citizens of different

states for diversity jurisdiction purposes. Delgadillo further asserts that the amount in controversy

exceeds the requisite $75,000. On the contrary, Plaintiff’s verified complaint states that the amount

demanded does not exceed $10,000, which is clearly under the $75,000 amount in controversy

requirement. Therefore, as the issue is whether Plaintiff’s claim in the operative pleading (i.e., the

complaint filed in state court) meets the amount in controversy requirement, diversity jurisdiction

cannot be established. Delgadillo has not shown that the state court action could have originally

been brought in federal court; therefore, the Court must remand this action.

CONCLUSION

Having carefully reviewed the notice of removal and the accompanying documents, the

Court finds and concludes that it does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action and the

removal is procedurally defective. Accordingly, the above captioned case is REMANDED to the

Superior Court for the County of San Diego, case no. 37-2013-00030961-CL-UD-CTL. The Clerk

of Court is instructed to return the case to the state court forthwith and to close this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 3, 2013

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

- 3 - 13cv1269

Case 3:13-cv-01269-MMA-WVG Document 3 Filed 06/03/13 Page 3 of 3