Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01875/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01875-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446fr Notice of Removal - Fraud

---

1 

17-cv-1875-AJB-JMA 

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 

SAGE HOME MORTGAGE, LLC, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

JAMES R. ROOHAN; and Does 1-10, 

inclusive, 

Defendants.

 Case No.: 17-cv-1875-AJB-JMA 

ORDER: 

(1) SUA SPONTE REMANDING 

ACTION TO STATE COURT FOR 

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER 

JURISDICTION; AND 

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS AS MOOT 

(Doc. Nos. 1, 2)

 

 On September 14, 2017, Defendant James R. Roohan (“Removing Defendant”), 

acting pro se, filed a notice of removal of an unlawful detainer action filed in San Diego 

Superior Court, (Doc. No. 1), and a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), (Doc. 

No. 2). For the reasons set forth below, the Court sua sponte REMANDS the action for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 1), and DENIES AS MOOT Removing 

Defendant’s application to proceed IFP, (Doc. No. 2). 

/// 

/// 

Case 3:17-cv-01875-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 10/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2 

17-cv-1875-AJB-JMA 

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

BACKGROUND 

The instant matter finds itself in federal court for the fourth time, having been 

removed and remanded three times before.1

 The underlying facts remain the same: on 

December 19, 2016, Plaintiff filed an unlawful detainer suit in the Superior Court of 

California, County of San Diego against Defendants James R. Roohan and Does 1-10. 

(Doc. No. 1-2 at 5.) Plaintiff alleges that on November 28, 2016, it purchased the premises 

located at 485 La Costa Avenue, Encinitas, CA 92024 in a non-judicial foreclosure sale 

under California law. (Id. at 6.) In spite of this purchase, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants 

have continued to possess the property and thus it seeks damages including restitution, 

unpaid rent, and attorney’s fees and costs. (Id. at 7–8.) 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction, having subject matter jurisdiction only over 

matters authorized by the Constitution and Congress. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. 

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). A defendant may remove a civil action from state court 

to federal court only if the district court could have original jurisdiction over the matter. 28 

U.S.C. § 1441(a). “[R]emoval statutes are strictly construed against removal.” Luther v. 

Countrywide Home Loans Serv., L.P., 533 F.3d 1031, 1034 (9th Cir. 2008). There is a 

“strong presumption” against removal jurisdiction, and the party seeking removal always 

has the burden of establishing that removal is proper. Gaus v. Miles, Inc., 980 F.2d 564, 

566 (9th Cir. 1992). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, federal jurisdiction 

must be rejected. Id. at 567. At any time during court proceedings, a district court may 

remand a case to state court if the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the 

case. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c). 

/// 

                                                                

1

 Removing Defendant attempted to remove the same unlawful detainer action in the 

following cases: (1) 17-cv-00272-JAH-KSC; (2) 17-cv-1409-AJB-JMA; and (3) 17-cv1613-AJB-JMA. Each time, the Court sua sponte remanded the case back to state court. 

Case 3:17-cv-01875-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 10/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3 

17-cv-1875-AJB-JMA 

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

DISCUSSION 

Removing Defendant’s notice of removal alleges that the Court has jurisdiction over 

the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a) and/or (b). (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) Federal question 

jurisdiction exists over “all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of 

the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2, cl. 1. Jurisdiction in 

federal question cases is “governed by the ‘well-pleaded complaint rule,’ which provides 

that federal [question] jurisdiction exists only when a federal question is presented on the 

face of the plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint.” Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 

386, 392 (1987). Diversity jurisdiction exists where there is complete diversity among 

opposing parties and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). 

Despite the clear and straightforward orders of this Court in the three other cases 

filed by Removing Defendant, he is again seeking to remove the same action to the district 

court. The Court again highlights that Removing Defendant’s notice of removal clearly and 

affirmatively shows that the only allegation is for a single claim for unlawful detainer, 

which is a California state law cause of action. (Doc. No. 1 at 1 (see Wells Fargo Bank v. 

Lapeen, No. C 11-01932 LB, 2011 WL 2194117, at *3 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011) (“An 

unlawful detainer action, on its face, does not arise under federal law but is purely a creature 

of California law.”) (citing Wescom Credit Union v. Dudley, No. CV 10-8203 GAF (SSx), 

2010 WL 4916578, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2010))). 

 The Court also notes that Removing Defendant makes no claims that removal is 

appropriate based on diversity jurisdiction. Looking at the complaint, the Court finds that 

Plaintiff and Removing Defendant are both citizens of California. (Doc. No. 1-2 at 5–6.) 

Thus, the complete diversity between the parties that is needed for a finding of diversity 

jurisdiction is lacking. 

 Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds that the complaint does not “necessarily 

raise a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial,” which this Court “may 

entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state 

judicial responsibilities.” Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng’g & Mfg., 545 

Case 3:17-cv-01875-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 10/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4 

17-cv-1875-AJB-JMA 

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

U.S. 308, 314 (2005); see also Aurora Loan Servs., LLC v. Montoya, No. 2:11-cv-2485- 

MCE-KJN-PS, 2011 WL 5508926, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2011) (“[P]laintiff filed its 

Complaint in Superior Court asserting a single claim for unlawful detainer premised solely 

on California law. Because a claim for unlawful detainer does not by itself present a federal 

question or necessarily turn on the construction of federal law, no basis for federal question 

jurisdiction appears on the face of the Complaint.”). Consequently, as the complaint in the 

instant action does not present a federal question and diversity jurisdiction is not present, 

the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. 

CONCLUSION2

 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. The Court sua sponte REMANDS the action to San Diego Superior Court for 

lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 

2. Removing Defendant’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Doc. 

No. 2), is DENIED AS MOOT. 

Dated: October 20, 2017 

 

 

                                                                

2

 The Court notes that based on Removing Defendant’s abusive litigation tactics, he was 

deemed a vexatious litigant in a hearing on September 20, 2017, in case 17-cv-1613-AJBJMA—which was the third attempt to remove the present complaint. 

Case 3:17-cv-01875-AJB-JMA Document 5 Filed 10/20/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4