Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00441/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00441-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332rp Diversity-Real Property

---

1

19-CV-441 JLS (MDD)

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

US BANK, N.A. as Trustee for the 

Certificateholders of Bank of America 

Funding Corporation Mortgage PassThrough Certificates, Series 2006-H,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN H. LUCORE, SR.; JUDY L. 

LUCORE; and DOES 1–10, INCLUSIVE,

Defendants.

Case No.: 19-CV-441 JLS (MDD)

ORDER REMANDING CASE

On March 6, 2019, Defendants Steven Lucore, Sr. and Judy Lucore filed a Notice of 

Removal, removing Plaintiff’s state court Complaint to this Court. (ECF No. 1.) This is 

not the first time Defendants have removed this particular action from state court. On 

January 28, 2016, Defendants removed the present state court unlawful detainer action to 

the Southern District of California. (No. 16-CV-226 JLS (MDD), ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 

filed a motion to remand, which the Court granted because Defendants’ notice of removal 

was untimely. (Id., ECF No. 20.) On February 7, 2018, Defendants filed another notice 

of removal, (No. 18-CV-286 JLS (MDD), ECF No. 1), which the Court again remanded 

because the notice was untimely. (Id., ECF No. 20.)

Case 3:19-cv-00441-JLS-MDD Document 5 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19-CV-441 JLS (MDD)

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 cases “brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States 

have original jurisdiction,” defendants may remove the action to federal court. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1441(a). Section 1441 provides two bases for removal: diversity jurisdiction and subjectmatter jurisdiction. Federal courts have diversity jurisdiction “where the amount in 

controversy” exceeds $75,000, and the parties are of “diverse” state citizenship. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1332. Federal courts have federal question jurisdiction over “all civil actions arising 

under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 

The party invoking the removal statute bears the burden of establishing that federal 

subject-matter jurisdiction exists. Emrich v. Touche Ross & Co., 846 F.2d 1190, 1195 (9th 

Cir. 1988). Moreover, courts “strictly construe the removal statute against removal 

jurisdiction.” Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 566 (9th Cir. 1992) (citing Boggs v. Lewis, 

863 F.2d 662, 663 (9th Cir. 1988); Takeda v. Nw. Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 765 F.2d 815, 818 

(9th Cir. 1985)). Therefore, “[f]ederal jurisdiction must be rejected if there is any doubt as 

to the right of removal in the first instance.” Id. (citing Libhart v. Santa Monica Dairy Co., 

592 F.2d 1062, 1064 (9th Cir. 1979)).

Under section 1446(b) of title 28 of the United States Code, a case can be removed 

either thirty days after receiving an initial complaint that is removable, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1446(b)(1), or, if the initial complaint is not removable, thirty days after receipt of the 

first document from which it can be ascertained that the case is removable. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(b)(3). Furthermore, “[a] case may not be removed . . . on the basis of [diversity] 

jurisdiction . . . more than 1 year after commencement of the action.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1446(c)(1). Additionally, “[a] civil action otherwise removable solely on the basis of 

[diversity] jurisdiction . . . may not be removed if any of the . . . defendants is a citizen of 

the State in which such action is brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). 

It is clear in this case that removal is improper for several reasons, two of which the 

Court addresses. First, the time to remove this case has long passed. Plaintiff filed this 

case in state court on June 15, 2015, and Defendants answered the Complaint on July 27, 

2015. The case was not removable in 2016 when Defendants first attempted to remove the 

Case 3:19-cv-00441-JLS-MDD Document 5 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19-CV-441 JLS (MDD)

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

case. It was not removable in 2018 when they tried again. It remains so now. Nothing in 

Defendants’ Notice of Removal changes this fact. Second, both Defendants reside in the 

state of California, making removal on diversity jurisdiction grounds improper. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). 

The Court notes that “absent new and different grounds for removal based on newly 

discovered facts or law, a defendant who improperly removes a case after a federal court 

previously remanded it risks being sanctioned under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.” 

Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp. v. Pulido, No. C 12-04525 LB, 2012 WL 5199441, at *2 

(N.D. Cal. Oct. 20, 2012); see also Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Zimmerman, No. 2:15-cv08268-CAS-MRWx, 2015 WL 6948576, at *3 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2015) (“Multiple

removals could encounter problems—could even lead to sanctions—if nothing of 

significance changes between the first and second tries.” (citing Benson v. SI Handling 

Sys., Inc., 188 F.3d 780, 783 (7th Cir. 1999))). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), it is also 

within the Court’s discretion to “require payment of just costs and any actual expenses, 

including attorney fees, incurred as a result of the removal.” Based on the facts of this 

case, the Court is well within its powers to sanction Defendants under Rule 11 and award 

costs to Plaintiffs under Section 1447. The Court declines to do so here; but the Court 

cautions Defendants against any further objectively unreasonable attempts to remove this 

action. 

Accordingly, the Court REMANDS this action to the Superior Court of California, 

County of San Diego. (ECF No. 1). The Court DENIES AS MOOT Defendants’ Motion 

to Consolidate. (ECF No. 3). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 13, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-00441-JLS-MDD Document 5 Filed 03/13/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3